Questions about when people get "saved"

[ltwin]

You don’t get to say that “man has a choice” AND “God does 100% of the salvific work”.

Yes, I do. Total depravity says man is incapable of doing anything spiritually good, including exercising a good will toward God. Arminians affirm this.

How does God remedy this? God intervenes through prevenient grace to free the will so that it can make a free choice–follow Christ or not follow Christ.

Justification, regeneration, adoption, sanctification–all of this is completely 100% the work of God. We cooperate by not getting in the way–and this is still via prevenient grace.

This is a contradiction. Even if God must work to enable the man to have the choice, he still must choose and can choose either way.

No. Lets break it down.

Arminianism: Man is totally depraved. God intervenes and now he can choose to receive God’s grace or to resist it.

Calvinism: Man is totally depraved. For the elect, God intervenes with irresistible grace so now man receive’s God’s grace. For the reprobate, God refuses to grant him grace and he continues to resist God.

The difference is resistible grace versus irresistible grace. Both sides affirm total depravity.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, I do. Total depravity says man is incapable of doing anything spiritually good, including exercising a good will toward God. Arminians affirm this.

How does God remedy this? God intervenes through prevenient grace to free the will so that it can make a free choice–follow Christ or not follow Christ.

Excellent. Then you admit that one of the major differences between Calvinism and Arminianism is the latter’s need for prevenient grace.

So they ARE different in at least that regard. Good, good, good. Let’s build on that;

-Prevenient grace is defined as the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit, given to all, enabling a person to respond to God’s call to salvation. Right?

-And because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will. Right?

Because of “free will” men are also able to resist God’s grace.

In Calvinism, man is not capable of doing this.

This is really the end of the discussion, showing the critical difference between Calvinism and Arminianism as it pertains to human depravity. But I’ll do a bit more “mopping up”.

Justification, regeneration, adoption, sanctification–all of this is completely 100% the work of God. We cooperate by not getting in the way–and this is still via prevenient grace.

Awesome. So we must provide assent or we can refuse. That completely eliminates God as a lone actor. Period. Disagreement here isn’t a theological issue. It’s an issue of basic logic.

Again, Calvinism doesn’t grant people this feature.

God intervenes and now he is free to not resist God’s grace. How is this really different from Calvinism–man is totally depraved and God gives him grace that he cannot resist.

Are you serious?

One. Can. Resist.
The. Other. Cannot.

The difference is resistible grace versus irresistible grace. Both sides affirm total depravity.

Another issue here that raises confusion is your apparent inability to frame Arminianism without using Calvinism (specifically TULIP) to do it.

As it pertains to human depravity, the Arminian view is that man is empowered to affirm or resist God. The Calvinist view is that man will always resist God unless God essentially makes the man affirm Him.
Even if by God’s “prevenient Grace”, the Arminian man can genuinely choose. The Calvinist man can’t.

---

For the Calvinist, the grace of God is the irresistible component calling him to salvation.

For the Armenian, he resists God’s grace because HE chooses to.
That is a description of the man. Not the grace. Which alters the understanding of his depravity.

 

[MT1926]

Not really. I have done no injustice to the Rom. 3 passage. I stand on my points.

If you want to take Romans 3 and apply it to a teaching on original sin that is your choice. Free will is great isn’t it?

Although, I must say I don’t see why you are making such a big deal about it because in your next statement
you say…

Let those children be judged according to their knowledge and deeds. They will be innocent.

…which sure seems like you are denying original sin anyway.

I’m not sure if you believe in original sin or not but I go to Romans 5 (not 3) to understand original sin.

Verse 12 tells us “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.”

Verses 15–19 expands on this… “Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”

Verses 16 & 18 tells us this applies to all men.

These verses explain what is meant by original sin. The Church goes on to clarify this meaning to show us that original sin is not the same as personal sin…

As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404).

We are born with this fallen nature. So how are children, born with a fallen nature, “innocent”?

We both agree on the meaning of John 3 “Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God”.

However, we disagree on exactly how this occurs.

I believe that we are born anew when we are Baptized. I also believe we can Baptize babies, thus wiping away original sin, allowing them to be born anew and if they should die before belief, they CAN see the kingdom of God.

You believe that we are born anew when we Believe. So how does this child, who is not born anew, able to see the kingdom of God?

It seems to me you are holding a double standard here? Do we have to be born anew or not?

Just curious do you also believe an adult, who has no knowledge of Jesus and has performed good deeds all their life, will also be judged innocent?

 

[MT1926]

Cornelius the Centurion and the gentiles who heard Peter preached received the gift of the Holy Spirit without baptism in Acts 10. Peter himself says, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” They were baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure how you are applying Acts 10 to my question but I think you are proving my point.

Maybe you misunderstood my question but I asked for scripture that shows us the Spirit did His work and Baptism was not present.

I would argue that Acts 10 is proof the work of the Holy Spirit is accomplished through Baptism. (Not saying this is the only way God does it, just saying God set it up as the norm.)

If we take all of Acts 10 in context we can see that the entire Chapter is about God initiating (v 1-23), orchestrating (v 24-43) and approving (v 44-48) of Gentiles being accepted into the Church, through Baptism.

The chapter actually points to Baptism as the normal mode of receiving the Holy Spirit.

This Chapter is still early in Peter’s ministry and shows us that he is still thick headed. Look at verse 16…

16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

It’s always three times with Peter. Notice it never tells us he ate. Basically, what God wanted him to do still hasn’t sunk into his thick head.

After this Peter ponders the vision and after the men show up he comes to the conclusion he is being direct to go preach to the Gentiles.

While preaching Peter clearly states that the good news begins at the moment Jesus is Baptized by John…

37 the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power

This is a direct reference to Luke 3:21-22, when Jesus was Baptized, by John, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. I believe Jesus leads by example and right here is a profound example of Jesus showing us what to do to be anointed by the Holy Spirit.

Now we get to verse 44. God here is saying Peter you thick headed fool I want you to Baptize these Gentiles. That’s when Peter slapped himself in the forehead and said now I understand what you want me to do and says “Can anyone forbid water for baptizing”. Forbidding baptism seems a little harsh if Baptism is of little importance.

God instructing Peter to Baptize Gentiles so they can receive the Holy Spirit is the main context of Acts 10. My reason being is because you said…

It says “repent and be baptized.” So, yes people who are baptized need to first believe and repent.

And no where in Acts 10 does it tell us the Gentiles repented before receiving the Holy Spirit.

Your thoughts?

 

[ltwin]

As it pertains to human depravity, the Arminian view is that man is empowered to affirm or resist God. The Calvinist view is that man will always resist God unless God essentially makes the man affirm Him.

Even if by God’s “prevenient Grace”, the Arminian man can genuinely choose. The Calvinist man can’t.

Yes, Arminians believe in free will and total depravity. Man’s true freedom comes through grace. Apart from prevenient grace, man would have no freedom except to do evil. He would have no power within himself to choose good or even know good. Prevenient grace provides both the incentive to follow the good, the knowledge of the good, and the power to choose for the good.

If you want to correct Arminians every time we say we believe in total depravity and explain to us that we can’t really believe it because we also believe God gives us grace to respond to grace by all means go ahead. Arminians will go on teaching total depravity and prevenient grace.

 

[ltwin]

Maybe you misunderstood my question but I asked for scripture that shows us the Spirit did His work and Baptism was not present.

They received the Spirit and were baptized after the fact. The Spirit worked prior to water baptism. Of course, they were baptized later because that is what we see in Scripture. Man believes and repents then he is baptized.

Now we get to verse 44. God here is saying Peter you thick headed fool I want you to Baptize these Gentiles. That’s when Peter slapped himself in the forehead and said now I understand what you want me to do and says “Can anyone forbid water for baptizing”. Forbidding baptism seems a little harsh if Baptism is of little importance.

Yes, clearly this is a dramatic experience specifically because God is showing that Gentiles can be baptized, but not just any Gentiles. Peter isn’t just going around splashing water on a bunch of Roman and Greek people. He will baptize those who are responding to the Gospel.

Why should he allow baptism to people that do not have faith? Baptism is through faith. If God is not giving faith to the Gentiles then Peter is right not to baptize them. Obviously, that is exactly what God was doing and this was a powerful example of it. The Spirit visibly fell on the Gentiles who heard the Gospel preached and believed it. Peter had no excuse. They were baptized in water because they were already baptized in the Holy Spirit.

And no where in Acts 10 does it tell us the Gentiles repented before receiving the Holy Spirit.

Seriously? Peter was preaching the Gospel to them. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” These people heard the Gospel and the Holy Spirit was there in a strong and visible way. Will the Holy Spirit not convince the world of sin and righteousness and judgment? He will not draw men to repentance?

These Gentiles heard the Word Peter preached and believed. The Holy Spirit fell baptizing them. Water baptism followed.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, Arminians believe in free will and total depravity.

You’re just repeating your error at this point.

If the Armenian can exercise his own will to affirm or deny God, then he is not “totally depraved” as Calvin presents it. The Calvinist simply can’t exercise their will to affirm God without God, essentially, making him do it. This is why they are different, despite your best attempts to deny it.

Even as it is a work of prevenient grace (the shoe-horn that keeps this choice from being out-right Pelagianism), the depraved Arminian is capable of making theological choices that the depraved Calvinist cannot.

If you want to say that “the Calvinist is Totally Depraved” and the “Armenian is Depraved but Improved by Grace!”, fine with me. They’re still obviously and observably different.

You can’t introduce the concept of prevenient grace as present in one of these systems and then numbly insist that the increased agency of the man somehow doesn’t make a difference. That’s just a genuinely stupid thing to do.

If you want to correct Arminians every time we say we believe in total depravity…

Trust me, it isn’t a common thing as I experience it. Particularly among Pentecostals, who I find tend to be far more emotionally attached to their religion. The hard, theological rationale of it, for the vast majority I’ve encountered, is extremely secondary (if not mostly absent).

In this regard, you are quite the rare bird.

---

For the Calvinist, the man plays no role in his salvation; neither through assent nor rejection. This simply isn’t true for the Arminian.

-And that is a hammer that will always bludgeon your lame argument to death.

Again, the Arminian simply has greater moral agency. Ergo he CANNOT be said to be equally depraved as the Calvinist. End of the story.

 

[tgGodsway]

You believe that we are born anew when we Believe. So how does this child, who is not born anew, able to see the kingdom of God?

The problem here is that you ask and answer your own questions and by the time you are done speculating you give your own answers to what you think I believe. Honestly I am not sure what you are talking about. A child too young to know right from wrong has not sinned. If they die in this state they will be judged accordingly. U base it on Paul’s Teaching in Romans 2-5

 

[MT1926]

Honestly I am not sure what you are talking about. A child too young to know right from wrong has not sinned. If they die in this state they will be judged accordingly.

I apologize if my question was confusing. Basically, I was asking if you believe we have to be born anew to be able to see the kingdom of God?

If yes, where does the Bible tell us this does not apply to children? Because I thought you said we need to believe to be born anew.

If no, why not?

 

[ltwin]

@ Vonsalza, such a weird conversation. I never thought I’d have a Catholic tell me i’m not Calvinist enough to believe in total depravity. To top it off, they tell me I’m not Pentecostal enough because I actually care. Shrug.

Even Reformed scholars are able to acknowledge that Arminians do believe in total depravity. Robert A. Peterson and Michael Williams wrote in Why I Am Not An Arminian, p. 163:

Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, every aspect of human nature is tainted by sin.

 

[Vonsalza]

@ Vonsalza, such a weird conversation. I never thought I’d have a Catholic tell me i’m not Calvinist enough to believe in total depravity.

I’ve never said that Armenians don’t believe in the depravity of man. And of course they’re similar. Arminius studied under Calvinists.

I’ve only correctly said that Arminian depravity isn’t the same as Calvin’s depravity. And it’s not. The depraved Arminian is empowered to choose or reject God. The depraved Calvinist is not.
Frankly, I’m tired of stating this obvious fact.

And to be honest, I think this empowerment Arminius identifies is really not much more than a retcon employed to avoid “Ok, so Pelegianism?” since literally no man exists apart from it.

Oh, and I was reformed before swimming the Tiber.

To top it off, they tell me I’m not Pentecostal enough because I actually care. Shrug.

No idea what you’re talking about here.

Even Reformed scholars…

Yeah, I saw the blog you data-mined this off of too.

I’ll inform the Reformed Scholars at the SBTS that a Pentecostal on the internet thinks they’ve misunderstood human depravity per Arminius versus human depravity per Calvin.

I wouldn’t hold out for a reply, though.

 

[tgGodsway]

I was asking if you believe we have to be born anew to be able to see the kingdom of God?

Yes, you cannot see the kingdom of God unless you are born of the Spirit.

yes, where does the Bible tell us this does not apply to children

I think it does apply to children unless they are unaware of sin. There is an innocence (in deed) by young children who do not commit sin. As Paul said it, they do not do “good or evil” (Ro.9:11) James said, “to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Ja.4:17. Also see John 9:41.

But the kingdom of God must be seen with spiritual eyes.

 

[MT1926]

I think it does apply to children unless they are unaware of sin. There is an innocence (in deed) by young children who do not commit sin. As Paul said it, they do not do “good or evil” (Ro.9:11) James said, “to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Ja.4:17. Also see John 9:41.

I’m sorry I’m not following you. Yeah Romans 9:11 says they do not do “good and evil” but how do you get from Paul teaching that everything depends on the grace of God’s call. Basically a calling to be born anew. To this shows us that children unaware of personal sin are exempt from inheriting original sin and the need to be born anew?

James 4:17 is speaking of our failure to act on truth is a sin of omission. It says nothing about infants who are not able to act?

John 9:41 says the same pretty much the same thing.

Both of these verses are talking about personal sin, not original sin. I’m not seeing how these verses teach if a person does not have personal sin they do not need to be born anew.

 

[MT1926]

The Spirit visibly fell on the Gentiles who heard the Gospel preached and believed it. Peter had no excuse. They were baptized in water because they were already baptized in the Holy Spirit.

I must be missing something here. Acts 10:44 tells us the Spirit fell on ever Gentile that heard the word, but it never mentions anything about their belief or repentance? It even points out this occurred while Peter was still speaking.

I would argue this verse is showing us that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles before Peter gets to the verse you mention, specifically to show Peter that the Gentiles should be Baptized…

Seriously? Peter was preaching the Gospel to them. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

These are Gentiles this was most likely the first time some of them heard the gospel message. A partial message at that.

Peter never even mentions the need for repentance here. Which you’ve already stated is just as important as belief. How would every single Gentile present know, at that very moment, that they would need to repent? Not to mention since the Spirit fell on all who heard they must have all repented at that very moment. That in itself seems to be a miracle that you think would be written in Acts 10:44…

44 While Peter was still saying this, all believed and repented and the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

I’m not trying to be nit picky here. But If you are allowed to take this passage as evidence that the Holy Spirit and Baptism aren’t linked. Then someone else can just as easily use this passage, which never mentions repentance, to prove that repentance isn’t necessary either. Which I am sure neither of us would agree with.

 

[ltwin]

I’ve never said that Armenians don’t believe in the depravity of man. And of course they’re similar. Arminius studied under Calvinists.

No, you just apparently know better than I do that it is a “partial depravity” I believe in rather than a total depravity and that I’m being sloppy and confusing by not agreeing with your preferred terminology.

Now, I understand your Pentecostal doctrine doesn’t hold to total depravity either, but nonetheless your theology is ultimately derived from those who did. The residue of history, as it were.

Respectfully, the Total Depravity of Calvin must not be confused nor conflated with the more partial depravity of Arminius. This is sloppy and confusion generating.

Frankly, I’m tired of stating this obvious fact.

Frankly, I’m tired of people telling me I’m using the wrong theological terminology just because they have a different denominational background.

 

[ltwin]

I must be missing something here. Acts 10:44 tells us the Spirit fell on ever Gentile that heard the word, but it never mentions anything about their belief or repentance? It even points out this occurred while Peter was still speaking.

Someone was born again in the middle of the preacher’s sermon! Have they no shame!

Sorry, on a serious note. I am having some issue understanding your line of reasoning. Acts 10:45 makes clear that when the Spirit fell the “gift of the Holy Spirit” was poured out on the Gentiles who heard. What exactly do you think the gift of the Holy Spirit is?

I would argue this verse is showing us that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles before Peter gets to the verse you mention, specifically to show Peter that the Gentiles should be Baptized…

Well, its showing the Jewish church that the New Covenant is for the Gentiles as well—the new birth, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and everything that comes with that including baptism.

Peter never even mentions the need for repentance here. Which you’ve already stated is just as important as belief. How would every single Gentile present know, at that very moment, that they would need to repent? Not to mention since the Spirit fell on all who heard they must have all repented at that very moment. That in itself seems to be a miracle that you think would be written in Acts 10:44…

Yes, there must be repentance in the Christian life. Did they all have theology degrees? No. But they heard enough of the Gospel apparently to place their faith in Christ and be born again since they received the Spirit.

Are you saying that even though they were given the gift of the Holy Spirit they were not regenerated, born again? That even though the Spirit had visibly performed a work of grace within them, baptizing them in the Holy Spirit in the same way as the disciples in the upper room on Pentecost that they were still unregenerated, still dead in sin?

I mean, its clear from reading this that Peter baptizes them in water because they had already been baptized in the Spirit. This was what the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost was. A baptism in the Spirit, Acts 1:4-5:

And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Acts 2:4

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:37-38

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tgGodsway]

are exempt from inheriting original sin

I have not said children are exempt from inheriting original sin. Yes they have inherited it because they were born into it. But they personally have not yet sinned because of their ignorance to what is good and evil. Just one act of sin is enough for our divine judge to declare them “guilty.” Just one. But a sinless child, who has the potential to sin is still in that stage of innocents. When Paul said, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Rom. 3:23) This statement was a general statement. He was not dealing with the particulars of how small children are exempt.

Infants who are unable to act on truth cannot act because they do not know, or, understand the truth. In that sense they are blind to it. But original sin is a “state” of being. It is a fallen nature bent to sin. The sin nature cannot do anything other than sin. The only exception is infants and small children who are in a stage of ignorance to what good and evil is.
The Pharisees asked Jesus, Are we blind also?.. Jesus said… If you were blind (blind to what is right and wrong) you would have go GUILT, but now that you say “We see,” your guilt remains.

In the Old Testament when God would use the nation of Israel to execute judgment on a pagan nation, God would always command them to kill every person including the children. This was a mercy killing because small children are not guilty of sin.

 

[ltwin]

@MT1926, Lets compare Acts 1 and 2 with Acts 10:44-48:

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

There is no difference. Even Peter says these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as he and the other Jewish Christians had. Can you have the Spirit the same way as an Apostle and not be regenerated?

 

[hope]

The only exception is infants and small children who are in a stage of ignorance to what good and evil is.

What scripture states this exception? Not that I disagree with you but I would add other exceptions the mentally handicap and Mary. If you make one exception, shouldn’t you then have to concede there could be others?

 

[hope]

Then why were they baptized?