Featured 4 Point Calvinism

I had commented sometime back on this topic, and offered what I had remembered of an example Mounce had used. I stumbled across it today:

Paul writes that For by grace (χάριτι) you have been saved through faith (πίστεως), and this (τοῦτο) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9).

This is one of the main passages used to show that salvation is not based on what we do but; rather, salvation is an unearned gift. Among other things, this means that no one can boast about deserving to be saved. More specifically, it is often used to emphasize that even our faith itself is not something we posses but rather is given to us: faith ... this not of yourselves ... the gift of God.

The problem with that exegesis of the verse is that this is a neuter pronoun and faith is a feminine noun. While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, it gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, this cannot be referring back to faith. But grace also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of τοῦτο. So what is?

If you looks backwards for an antecedent, you will look in vain. There are neuter nouns, but they make no sense as an antecedent.

The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general thought, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.

We often talk about trusting god, that salvation is by faith, but I have often wondered how much people are really able to understand these words. I got to hear my nephew preach this morning, and he did a great job of explaining Eph 2:8-9 (although he never referenced it) using Isa 6. God reveals himself as a holy God. Isaiah's appropriate response was to see the great chasm between himself and God and cry out, Woe is me. Isaiah is forgiven by merely receiving God's atoning gift of the burning goals. Salvation, Dave preached, has to do with seeing God for who he is, with seeing myself for who I am, realizing that there is nothing I can do to move from being a sinner to being holy, and yet also believing that the holy God has done what only he can do in reaching out and offering forgiveness to us. Faith is believing that God has extended the fires of forgiveness.

Isaiah clearly saw that the entire process was a gracious gift received by the faith that believes God has bridged the gap and has forgiven our sins

https://billmounce.com/blog/antecedents-and-faith-eph-2-8-9

 

Don't go riding on that long black train!!!! Laugh

 

Hey Icon,

Thanks for getting back with me.

Obviously I don’t care that we do disagree, and I think we are on equal ground here. We’ve discussed this topic over the years enough to know where we stand. I respect that. I just didn’t understand your disagreement on this particular post.

Post #15 has nothing to do with my comment. I never fault one for holding strongly to their beliefs (even if they are wrong). We should believe what we believe or find something else to believe. But what I specifically stated was that Reformed thought is diverse, and it is. Within the Reformed you have Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians….it’s diverse plain and simple.

What I mean by the legitimacy of other theological persuasions is that there are genuine arguments and views that are not necessarily your own. Some here believe their understanding to be the only understanding that could possibly be correct. This is what Scripture calls “leaning on your own understanding.” We do not have all of the answers. Theology by definition incorporates human reasoning, and is therefore able to be flawed. It is imperfect because we are imperfect. There are legitimate differences within Reformed thought. And yes, even Arminianism was a legitimate disagreement (they came to a wrong conclusion, but the "problem of evil" has historically been a significant theological issue).

I was not thinking, brother, of confessions when I spoke of people using Calvinism as their measuring stick. I was thinking of people like Geisler who, instead of saying I believe such and such reverts back to Calvinism and calls himself a 4 point Calvinist. For centuries Calvinists have affirmed that Jesus died to make salvation possible for all men (this is the only reason I mentioned those around during Dort…..to show that Calvinism remained diverse even when they rejected Arminianism). At the same time, other Calvinists have denied that view. Neither group considered themselves less Calvinistic or hyper Calvinistic.

What we end up with is some people who think that their understand is and always has been Calvinism. The irony comes, and the blinders come on, when these people happen to be Baptist. But no, Reformed thought (just like with the New Testament church) has never been without internal differences. And no, your particular understanding has been denounced throughout Church history (which does not make you wrong, it just means that your view is not the only view within orthodox Christianity). When we fail to see theory in our theology then have devolved into idolatry (with our theories as the idols).

There is no need to go into those historical disagreements. That was not my intent at all. You have acknowledged the truth I was speaking of. There never has been a time in history when Calvinism was united as one in all of its doctrine. There never has been a time in history when Calvinists as a whole accepted Baptistic belief. There never has been at time in history when the Reformed church was unified under one theology. (BTW….do you know where the term "Calvinism" originated?).

Anyway, I still do not see where we disagree, except perhaps that you may not understand how all of those other interpretations could possibly have a legitimate cause.

 

If you mean that you are not sure that I respect where we disagree, then I can assure you that I do. Whether you accept that is of no consequence to me.

It is not too simplistic, and the fact that those mainstream denominations are declining does not negate the fact that they existed for centuries within Reformed thought and if rise and decline marks truth, then you would be Pentecostal.

I can’t help if you think it too vague that differences arise out of legitimate causes. It is a factual statement regardless as to whether or not you believe it. I suggest that you take a bit of time to study historical theology. What you will find is that over and over again theology develops out of legitimate disagreements (often out of circumstances contemporary to the development). Your disbelief has no bearing on the truth of that statement. But it does highlight the issue of relying on one’s understanding, which I will discuss momentarily.

I also see fundamentalists as believing that their understanding is the only understanding that could possibly be correct. I also see it in your responses to a great degree, and strongly in the replies of Internet Theologian and Sovereign Grace as well.

You do not agree that theology incorporates human reasoning? I don’t think that you fully understand the nature of theological study, and perhaps this is why it seems to me that you often hold theories as Scripture itself. What you do not realize is that when you do this you are placing yourself in the role of God (you are the crux of what is correct interpretation as those theories that suit your understanding are what you accept).

You do not agree that there was a legitimate disagreement at Leiden? History proves you wrong here, brother. In fact, the existence of the five points of Calvinism are proof enough that the disagreement was legitimate. Look at the history of the controversy and the discussions/doctrines that it brought out, for goodness sake. This is a nonsense “disagreement” and I believe you know it.

I agree.

This is a foolish statement. The Reformation was a long time ago, but it was not that far back. We do not have to “piece together fragments from church history” to understand the diversity of Calvinism. All we need to do is to read and understand church history. This, brother, is a failing that your posts express. And yes, to know if the Calvinistic church had differing opinions and views under an overarching theology one does have to go outside of Scripture. You like to pull extra-biblical materials when you think it proves your point, but when you are undeniably wrong you plead “scripture.”

Again, your definition of “real Cal” is someone who adheres to your understanding. Although I am not claiming to be a Calvinist, I do appreciate church history and on that ground strongly disagree with your standard.

It is not too general to state that there never has been a time in history when Calvinists as a whole accepted baptistic belief or that there never has been a time in history when the Reformed church was united under one theology. That’s a pretty specific fact. You may not like it, but you cannot deny it.

 

I agree with several of your points here, Icon, and there are several places where I disagree.

The point is not that subjective reasoning overrides scriptural truth but that your theology is also subjective. As we agreed regarding fundamentalism, this is a flaw in their thought process. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but I also see this flaw in the theology of a handful here. To stand on one's belief is one thing (we all do it, that's why we have beliefs), but to advocate one's understanding as scripture is another. I see you and Internet Theologian doing the latter.

I am not sure that comparing people at a "distance" as theology is inappropriate when the distance that I am using is the Reformation period all the way to the late nineteenth century. You may get some objection from your own camp as there are some here who still believe John Gill relevant commentary.

 

I understand your disagreement with a couple of points I’ve made. I believe that this is due to a difference in definitions. For example, using my definition there is no such animal as theology that has been revealed by God. When I speak of “theology” I am dealing with our interpretations, systematic methods, doctrinal development, and application (what we do with God’s revelation). I do not believe in extended special revelation (I think we agree here). But if I defined theology as, essentially, Scripture, then I would agree with you.

Insofar as my own beliefs, I affirm the depravity of man, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual grace, and eternal security. Our conclusions on those points are not so different, although our basis for and implications of those doctrines are different. Fitting into a theological system has never been my desire (as you point out, God uses men at different times and in different places, with different truths).

The greatest commandments are to love God with all of our heart, soul and strength and our neighbor as our selves. I would say that the latter is sometimes the difficult part, but in truth if we fail one we can’t keep the other. If in our discourse you have detected that I have not fulfilled these commandments, you are right. It is not for a lack of desire, but a weakness of this flesh.

My concern is not that you believe as I believe - that would exceed my responsibility entirely. My hope is that we are united in Christ regardless of our differing understanding. Sometimes I get the feeling that others are hostile to understandings that are not their own, and it does seem that people coordinate attacks on brethren who hold these differences. I am certain that there are some people who hold views that they cannot defend except within their own systems (they can hold a pep rally but not a debate) because they have been indoctrinated into a theory. I am not saying that this is you by any means, I only mention this because this observation has influenced and motivated my own studies.

One thing that has struck me, Icon, in our past conversation is your willingness to share the gospel message with others. You not only have a heart for evangelism but God has, I believe, placed you in a position where He can use you for the work of the Kingdom. I think it is useful to know where we agree, but also where and why we disagree. My questions of you are not intended to demean your view but were for my own understanding. Yes, we disagree on many points. But the gospel of Christ is not one of these.

 

Well, it has been my experience that disagreements here are about 50% definitions (and therefore arguments are about 50% strawmen arguments).

There are several reasons that I disagree with your application of Ephesians 1, but here I will simply say that I believe the passage to which you refer is speaking of a spiritual understanding but not necessarily the “answers” to questions you may seek to address. The focus is not the development of a concise systematic theology or soteriology but a knowledge of God so that one may know the hope of His calling, the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and the greatness of His power towards us who believe. And you are right that this may deserve a separate thread (I’ll start one, if you are interested please feel free to share your understanding).

I agree. The problem with some is that they fail to realize that they cannot defend with words what they deny with action. It is impossible to correct brethren biblically and ignore how Scripture teaches us to deal with one another at the same time. That is why I am so cautious at times (perhaps a bit too cautious or apologetic). But I do not want you, or anyone else, to infer intent or tone to my words which were not implied. I would much rather lose an argument on the Baptist board and remain on firm ground than win having degraded and insulted a brother.

I have never viewed our disagreements as anything but family arguments. Sometimes those types of disputes are the strongest, but in the end we are family (like it or not) Biggrin. Between the two of us, I think that we can have good arguments within the context of biblical discourse (even if we never come to an agreement) and without trying to mortally wound the other….we can keep the blood circulating.