K
Khalid
Guest
I stand corrected; it is fully possible that my experience is not representative of any but those I have known.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
Khalid
Guest
I’d define the “elect” very similar to how would Calvin, but without the (“reverse elect”, to be imprecise) reprobate (no double-election; God elects the saved, and man damns himself: this is possible due to the differences in the consequent [demanding] and antecedent [desiring] will of God). I agree that the elect are elect, by definition, and will persevere unto death, but that not all who are justified at the present moment, are elect, and not all those who are elect from eternity, are at the present moment justified. To borrow a proof-text off the top of my head: For many are called, but few are chosen: many will be justified, but few are elect.Yes, I would suspect that we part here. Though we’d both agree that those who profess faith in Christ can fall away. Hence, the entire discussion of James 2 to begin with, where James indicates there are those who profess faith but their faith is shown to be dead - that is, not present at all. We would probably also agree that all of the elect will be saved (of course, you’re not a Calvinist so you might define that differently than I, I don’t know). Where we disagree is that you believe those who are justified, but not elect, can fall away (correct me if I am wrong). The reason being is that Paul, in Romans 8, does not leave room for a category of those who are justified not being glorified. “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” There is, therefore, no one who is justified who is not elect. Paul does not say that God predestined some, and then called some of those predestined, and then justified some of those who were called, and then glorified some of those who were justified. The one is necessitated by the other.
Sanctification is not only mandatory - it is inevitable. Not perfect, of course, in this life, contra the holiness groups, but still inevitable to varying degrees.
I believe we agree on sanctification, both of us with the caveat that a non-sanctified man can be justified upon his deathbed and be redeemed, having been one of the elect all along: we can not tell who is elect (not even ourselves). Saint Dismas (the good thief) in the gospel is an example of a man who was justified close to death, to whom Christ said, today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
As a Catholic, anyone who receives anointing of the sick/extreme unction before death, his sins will be forgiven him, even if he does not arise and be healed, and sins no more before death, has been justified and will be saved: this is the closest I come to “works salvation”, but a man can’t anoint himself: it relies on the will of God working through man, as do all other aspects of salvation.
I will have to think on your post about imputed righteousness, as you make a good point that, the moment a man is justified, he is not sanctified. My immediate reaction was that justification is imputation, and sanctification is infusion, but I’m not sure if that’s philosophically or theologically coherent, and I have a feeling it may be heresy. I’ll have to check out the decrees of Trent, to see if such a position can be held, without heresy (if I don’t know it’s heretical, it’s material heresy; if I do know, it is formal heresy, but I have a duty to find out before I speak on it). As I said, I’ll have to study the question.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Okay…equal ultimacy; that God chooses to save some, which necessitates that He chooses to damn others. I wouldn’t agree with that position either. Man, by virtue of his condition in Adam is already reprobate by nature and by choice. God doesn’t have to choose damnation gor him. The only active choice God has to make is to save him. Most of the Reformed confessions espouse this view. For example, the Belgic Confession says that God elects some and “passes over the rest.” The equal ultimacy view seems relegated to hyper-Calvinists.I’d define the “elect” very similar to how would Calvin, but without the (“reverse elect”, to be imprecise) reprobate (no double-election; God elects the saved, and man damns himself: this is possible due to the differences in the consequent [demanding] and antecedent [desiring] will of God). I agree that the elect are elect, by definition, and will persevere unto death, but that not all who are justified at the present moment, are elect, and not all those who are elect from eternity, are at the present moment justified. To borrow a proof-text off the top of my head: For many are called, but few are chosen: many will be justified, but few are elect.
No disputing this one.I believe we agree on sanctification, both of us with the caveat that a non-sanctified man can be ju[SIGN][/SIGN]stified upon his deathbed and be redeemed, having been one of the elect all along: we can not tell who is elect (not even ourselves). Saint Dismas (the good thief) in the gospel is an example of a man who was justified close to death, to whom Christ said, today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
As a Catholic, anyone who receives anointing of the sick/extreme unction before death, his sins will be forgiven him, even if he does not arise and be healed, and sins no more before death, has been justified and will be saved: this is the closest I come to “works salvation”, but a man can’t anoint himself: it relies on the will of God working through man, as do all other aspects of salvation.
I will have to think on your post about imputed righteousness, as you make a good point that, the moment a man is justified, he is not sanctified. My immediate reaction was that justification is imputation, and sanctification is infusion, but I’m not sure if that’s philosophically or theologically coherent, and I have a feeling it may be heresy. I’ll have to check out the decrees of Trent, to see if such a position can be held, without heresy (if I don’t know it’s heretical, it’s material heresy; if I do know, it is formal heresy, but I have a duty to find out before I speak on it). As I said, I’ll have to study the question.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Okay…equal ultimacy; that God chooses to save some, which necessitates that He chooses to damn others. I wouldn’t agree with that position either.Okay…equal ultimacy; that God chooses to save some, which necessitates that He chooses to damn others. I wouldn’t agree with that position either. Man, by virtue of his condition in Adam is already reprobate by nature and by choice. God doesn’t have to choose damnation gor him. The only active choice God has to make is to save him. Most of the Reformed confessions espouse this view. For example, the Belgic Confession says that God elects some and “passes over the rest.” The equal ultimacy view seems relegated to hyper-Calvinists.
No disputing this one.
Why wouldn’t you agree with this? There are many examples of God judging people and holding them accountable for sin, in both the Old Testament and New Testament… Right?
Or, am I misunderstanding your comment here?
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
In the context of predestination, Jimmy. Equal ultimacy is the belief that God predestines some to salvation, and predestines others to damnation.Okay…equal ultimacy; that God chooses to save some, which necessitates that He chooses to damn others. I wouldn’t agree with that position either.
Why wouldn’t you agree with this? There are many examples of God judging people and holding them accountable for sin, in both the Old Testament and New Testament… Right?
Or, am I misunderstanding your comment here?
Do Baptists take a more Arminian POV toward election?In the context of predestination, Jimmy. Equal ultimacy is the belief that God predestines some to salvation, and predestines others to damnation.
Jon
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Only Arminian Baptists, of which the majority are nowadays (though it wasn’t always so, as the founders of the Southern Bapist Convention were monergists). I myself am Calvinistic on those topics. I think there is a large misunderstanding among non-Calvinists about what we believe on the subject of reprobation. Granted, some of us haven’t helped; but there is a clear straw man that is usually presented when the debate arises.Do Baptists take a more Arminian POV toward election?
Jon
In election, there is a positive and a negative. Mankind is lost by nature and must be redeemed. The positive end of election is that God chooses to take some of those who are lost and, through Christ, elect them to salvation unconditionally, by free grace.
Since man is by nature lost, God doesn’t have to “do anything” for a man to be damned. He is damned by nature and choice. That is the negative side of election. It’s negative in that there is no active involvement on the part of God. God uses the reprobate in order to fulfill His purposes (like Pharaoh, the Pharisees, the Romans, etc.).
The Belgic Confession of Faith summarizes it well: “We believe that-- all Adam’s descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.”
=Gaelic Bard;10238506]Only Arminian Baptists, of which the majority are nowadays (though it wasn’t always so, as the founders of the Southern Bapist Convention were monergists). I myself am Calvinistic on those topics. I think there is a large misunderstanding among non-Calvinists about what we believe on the subject of reprobation. Granted, some of us haven’t helped; but there is a clear straw man that is usually presented when the debate arises.
I don’t think Lutherans misunderstand it, just disagree.In election, there is a positive and a negative. Mankind is lost by nature and must be redeemed. The positive end of election is that God chooses to take some of those who are lost and, through Christ, elect them to salvation unconditionally, by free grace.
If one believes in Total Depravity, and that one can only come to God by grace, how is it a choice?Since man is by nature lost, God doesn’t have to “do anything” for a man to be damned. He is damned by nature** and choice**. That is the negative side of election. It’s negative in that there is no active involvement on the part of God. God uses the reprobate in order to fulfill His purposes (like Pharaoh, the Pharisees, the Romans, etc.).
As compared to the Formula of Concord:The Belgic Confession of Faith summarizes it well: “We believe that-- all Adam’s descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.”
Thanks for your perspective, Gaelic, and welcome to the forum.This Christ calls to Himself all sinners and promises them rest, and He is in earnest [seriously wills] **that all men should come to Him **and suffer themselves to be helped, to whom He offers Himself in His Word, and wishes them to hear it and not to stop their ears or [neglect and] despise the Word. Moreover, He promises the power and working of the Holy Ghost, and divine assistance for perseverance and eternal salvation [that we may remain steadfast in the faith and attain eternal salvation].
Jon
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Because Scripture does not define choice according to Western philosophical concepts. We have a presupposition that in order for something to truly be a choice, we must start from a neutral standpoint and have the option to choose good or evil. Scripture does not operate by this standard in order to determine what is and is not a choice. Scripture states that man is enslaved to sin, and freely chooses to remain in it. That is, nothing outside of his own corrupted heart forces him to choose to remain there (so that man, and not God, is responsible). It doesn’t try to resolve the philosophical tensions that that creates.I don’t think Lutherans misunderstand it, just disagree.
If one believes in Total Depravity, and that one can only come to God by grace, how is it a choice?
We’re drifting from the thread, but scripture also says that God so loved the world. Christ’s saving work is available to all.Because Scripture does not define choice according to Western philosophical concepts. We have a presupposition that in order for something to truly be a choice, we must start from a neutral standpoint and have the option to choose good or evil. Scripture does not operate by this standard in order to determine what is and is not a choice. Scripture states that man is enslaved to sin, and freely chooses to remain in it. That is, nothing outside of his own corrupted heart forces him to choose to remain there (so that man, and not God, is responsible). It doesn’t try to resolve the philosophical tensions that that creates.
Again, from the Formula of Concord:
I have often said, with no disrespect to anyone, rresulting from this Calvinist thought, along with the sacraments, I would far sooner be Catholic than Refomed, or any of the communions that share this view.Therefore we should judge concerning this our election to eternal life neither from reason nor from the Law of God, which lead us either into a reckless, dissolute, Epicurean life or into despair, and excite pernicious thoughts in the hearts of men, for they cannot, as long as they follow their reason, successfully refrain from thinking: If God has elected me to salvation, I cannot be condemned, no matter what I do; and again: If I am not elected to eternal life, it is of no avail what good I do; it is all [all my efforts are] in vain anyway.
Jon
Jon
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
You’re absolutely right that God loves His creation, that He sent the Son to redeem and restore it. That also, with respect to Total Depravity (which the Book of Concord affirms), is set against the backdrop of the condition of unregenerate man being desperate enough that it required the slaughter of the second Person of the Holy Trinity to redeem it.We’re drifting from the thread, but scripture also says that God so loved the world. Christ’s saving work is available to all.
But you’re thinking more of the extent of the atonement. I can understand why it might seem more loving for it to have been made for every single person. For another perspective, tjough, I would offer mine. Which is that those for whom the atonement was made, their salvation is assured. No one for whom the ransom was made will suffer for their sins. This, to me, is more loving than an atonement which saves no one, rather leaving it to human choice as to whether man will complete the work of Christ.
Now, I realize that Lutherans don’t believe in the choice aspect, being monergistic. I still would have to hold it an unbiblical concept that God would send to perdition those for whom Christ is making intercession for, with his blood.
You have to follow your conscience though, Jon, and you’re still a brother in the gospel!
And there it is, my friend. The atonement was made for all. But free will of the regenerate to choose to reject grace is also there. It isn’t a matter of God sending to perdition those whem Christ is making intercession. It becomes a choice for them to reject grace and the Holy Spirit.You’re absolutely right that God loves His creation, that He sent the Son to redeem and restore it. That also, with respect to Total Depravity (which the Book of Concord affirms), is set against the backdrop of the condition of unregenerate man being desperate enough that it required the slaughter of the second Person of the Holy Trinity to redeem it.
But you’re thinking more of the extent of the atonement. I can understand why it might seem more loving for it to have been made for every single person. For another perspective, tjough, I would offer mine. Which is that those for whom the atonement was made, their salvation is assured. No one for whom the ransom was made will suffer for their sins. This, to me, is more loving than an atonement which saves no one, rather leaving it to human choice as to whether man will complete the work of Christ.
Now, I realize that Lutherans don’t believe in the choice aspect, being monergistic. I still would have to hold it an unbiblical concept that God would send to perdition those for whom Christ is making intercession for, with his blood.
You have to follow your conscience though, Jon, and you’re still a brother in the gospel!
Jon
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
That’s a related but separate issue from the extent of the atonement. You’re referring more to perseverance. The reason the elect persevere is precisely because of Christ’s intercession. The Father cannot say “No” to those pleas of the High Priest. I was addressing more the unregenerate though.And there it is, my friend. The atonement was made for all. But free will of the regenerate to choose to reject grace is also there. It isn’t a matter of God sending to perdition those whem Christ is making intercession. It becomes a choice for them to reject grace and the Holy Spirit.
Jon
Blessings.
I neglected to mention my affection for you as a sibling in Christ, as well.That’s a related but separate issue from the extent of the atonement. You’re referring more to perseverance. The reason the elect persevere is precisely because of Christ’s intercession. The Father cannot say “No” to those pleas of the High Priest. I was addressing more the unregenerate though.
Blessings.
His peace,
Jon
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
How would asking for forgiveness for sins committed, or failing to ask for forgiveness for sins work then?In the context of predestination, Jimmy. Equal ultimacy is the belief that God predestines some to salvation, and predestines others to damnation.
K
Khalid
Guest
According to the Molinistic view, your repentance (asking for sins to be forgiven) was foreseen by God before all eternity, and was in his original plan. You are elected based on the foreknowledge of your merits (similar to Arminianism). This is called “middle knowledge”.
There is another view, called the Congruist, which is similar, but states that God gives the grace to those he has foreseen, due to their regeneracy, justification, estate in life, and myriad other factors, will indeed accept it, so that God’s sufficient grace is always efficacious to those to whom it is given.
The Thomist-Bañezian position is more along the lines that your repentance is due to God’s working in your heart and your prior regeneration through the grace of God and the faith he has given you, and that you, as an unregenerate man, could never ask repentance. It’s “Catholic Calvinism”, or so I’ve heard it put (I believe Jimmy Akin said as much). It’s not that you were elected based on foreseen merits, but that any merit you appear to have, is based on your foreseen predestination/election.
When talking about falling from grace, the subject is a little trickier (councils have been held and books have been written to attempt to explain it); I would read the canons of the Second Council of Orange (not ecumenical, but highly influential), the canons on justification of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, the relevant parts of the Summa Theologiae (mainly the articles of question 23, prima pars), and the book Predestination by Dominican Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and the relevant parts of the Bible (Romans, especially).
Of course, those are what formed my views. I know William Lane Craig is a Molinist, I believe Alvin Plantinga is a Congruist (and they’re both Protestants). Suarez was the first Congruist. Molina the first Molinist. Thomas the first Thomist (elucidated by Bañez).
Catholic Encyclopedia has:
Thomism (in the “controversies on grace” article)
Molinism
Congruism
There is another view, called the Congruist, which is similar, but states that God gives the grace to those he has foreseen, due to their regeneracy, justification, estate in life, and myriad other factors, will indeed accept it, so that God’s sufficient grace is always efficacious to those to whom it is given.
The Thomist-Bañezian position is more along the lines that your repentance is due to God’s working in your heart and your prior regeneration through the grace of God and the faith he has given you, and that you, as an unregenerate man, could never ask repentance. It’s “Catholic Calvinism”, or so I’ve heard it put (I believe Jimmy Akin said as much). It’s not that you were elected based on foreseen merits, but that any merit you appear to have, is based on your foreseen predestination/election.
When talking about falling from grace, the subject is a little trickier (councils have been held and books have been written to attempt to explain it); I would read the canons of the Second Council of Orange (not ecumenical, but highly influential), the canons on justification of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, the relevant parts of the Summa Theologiae (mainly the articles of question 23, prima pars), and the book Predestination by Dominican Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and the relevant parts of the Bible (Romans, especially).
Of course, those are what formed my views. I know William Lane Craig is a Molinist, I believe Alvin Plantinga is a Congruist (and they’re both Protestants). Suarez was the first Congruist. Molina the first Molinist. Thomas the first Thomist (elucidated by Bañez).
Catholic Encyclopedia has:
Thomism (in the “controversies on grace” article)
Molinism
Congruism
S
stewstew03
Guest
Wondering if you could elaborate on this - what does it mean?… The Father cannot say “No” to those pleas of the High Priest…
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Hebrews 7:25, 10:14Wondering if you could elaborate on this - what does it mean?
No one for whom the Son intercedes will be lost.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Got it. So, where is free will in all this…?Hebrews 7:25, 10:14
No one for whom the Son intercedes will be lost.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Could you clarify, stew? Just to be sure I know in what context you’re using free will.Got it. So, where is free will in all this…?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.