Calvanism Application

[Pastor Larry]

It was His plan to elect Christ as the Savior and all those who believe in Him to also be elect.

That's not what the text says is it?

Yes it is.

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,

At the risk of being pedantic and tied to the text, where does this verse say anything about electing Christ as the Savior or about belief?

 

[Jarthur001]

Just as long as we're clear. As I've mentioned to you before I lean towards Calvinism. So, I find it difficult arguing against. But I also don't think discussion boards are well served with everyone agreeing. I call it back patting. I think there should good opposing discussion to sharpen our skills for those times when we debate those who are vehimently opposed to us. To oppose your position I was building my case that the Calvin's training initially for the priesthood until his family felt that he would be more secure as a lawyer was educated in Classical studies which includes stoic philosophy. Also your training shapes how you approach the bible. Calvin was converted shortly after his experience in Renessance humanism with his mentor Andrias Alciati. Which we know was steeped in the classics. To show his familiarity with the Classics we see that his first works in 1532 was a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. Then I wanted to show how classic philosophy had commonly "colored" the views of men of that time period when exegete (ing) scripture. For instance Anslem and more commonly known Thomas Aquinas not to mention Erasemus. I chose Anselm since it is earlier development to that of Calvin and he uses scriptures but attacks the passages using philosophers methodology. I submit Calvin does so as well. How? Well I quoted the very begining of The Institutes with regard to God which can be closely defined as the first cause. Thomas Aquinas does this as well though he calls it exactly that.
We see that an attempt to make Calvin's Treatise or Apology of his beliefs more palatable to those looking for more simplicity; Calvin's students outlined what they believed Calvins view as TULIP. Specifically I wanted to view election which is demonstrated in his Uncondictional election aspect. Which resembles Stocism of the Classics. By it Calvin ignores verses like 1 John 2:2

That is nothing new that started with Calvin.

The Platonic dogmas," says Justin Martyr, "are not foreign to Christianity. If we Christians say that all things were created and ordered by God, we seem to enounce a doctrine of Plato; and, between our view of the being of God and his, the article appears to make the only difference" (cf. II Apol., xiii.). "Justin" (says Ackermann, Das Christliche im Plato, chap. i., Hamburg, 1835; Eng. transl., The Christian Element in Plato, Edinburgh, 1861

In fact, look at this verse and tell me what Johns goal was...

"In the beginning was the Word" (john 1:1)

And there are more verses like this one.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Before Adam sinned he was kept alive by spirit, after sin blood replaced the spirit,

Where did you get this from?

We sacrifce our bodies (flesh/blood) as an offering for our own personal sin, (Goat for the people) while the sins of the world are placed on the Scapegoat.

Perhaps this, like Webdog, is simply the result of not thinking through the issues carefully, but this is rank heresy. We do not sacrifice our bodies for our own personal sin. That is false doctrine.

Not anymore than the impossibility of being saved when we are worth the trouble.

Yes, it is impossible for someone who does not exist to believe anything. It is not impossible to be saved, since God has saved us through Christ.

Sorry but I've never heard of of two sancitifications.

Great time to learn.

So are we made holy so that we are worth saving?

Sanctify doesn't mean only to be made holy. The root is to be set apart. It is clear from 2 Thess 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:2 that there is a sanctification that comes before salvation. 1 Cor 7 testifies to sanctification for unbelievers when it says that an unbelieving spouse and children are sanctified by a believing spouse. Heb 10:29 has a similar use of an unbeliever being saanctified.

How can we be holy while still in our sins?

We aren't. To be sanctified does not just mean to be made holy. It means to be set apart.

 

[Amy.G]

At the risk of being pedantic and tied to the text, where does this verse say anything about electing Christ as the Savior or about belief?

Isaiah 42

1Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is nothing new that started with Calvin.


In fact, look at this verse and tell me what Johns goal was...



And there are more verses like this one.

Good quote!!! So what are you getting at? That Christianity has always been infused with Greek philosophy or mistakenly accused of it?

 

[Jarthur001]

"Since the foundation of the world" means that it was God's plan long before He created anything.


It was His plan to elect Christ as the Savior and all those who believe in Him to also be elect.

Yes it is.

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,

Amy,

We have been over this before.

Because God chose us "in him" cannot be construed to imply that we are the ones who place ourselves "in him"!

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Now will you also claim that you choose to be placed "in Adam"?

The elect to be "in Christ" means only that Christ is the federal head of the elect, and not that each individual could of himself choose to be in Christ.

Also....
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:27-30, "

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

Did you see that?? Because of HIM you are in Christ. Not because of YOU!!!!

 

[Jarthur001]

Good quote!!! So what are you getting at? That Christianity has always been infused with Greek philosophy or mistakenly accused of it?

Just as John used greek philosophy and logic to share the gospel with the greeks (John 1) we too are to use all means to share the gospel. Many say Paul says we should not use philosophy. But I see it that Paul tells us to.."Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy....". We must be careful when we study and use philosophy, and not let it rule over scripture. But to know philosophy can be helpful in sharing the gospel for many reasons. Just beware if you go there because logic can replace faith if you let it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just as John used greek philosophy and logic to share the gospel with the greeks (John 1) we too are to use all means to share the gospel. Many say Paul says we should not use philosophy. But I see it that Paul tells us to.."Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy....". We must be careful when we study and use philosophy, and not let it rule over scripture. But to know philosophy can be helpful in sharing the gospel for many reasons. Just beware if you go there because logic can replace faith if you let it.

Is it possible then this warning you gave me that Calvin fell into? Was he a double predestinarian or a passive reprobation?

 

[Jarthur001]

Is it possible then this warning you gave me that Calvin fell into? Was he a double predestinarian or a passive reprobation?

It all depends on how you read him. Most would claim he held to double predestinarian. However, its not the same double predestinarian that we hear today.

RC Sproul....

The Double-Predestination Distortion

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."

I like this by Luther..

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation

 

[Amy.G]

Amy,

We have been over this before.

Hello James! :wavey:

Because God chose us "in him" cannot be construed to imply that we are the ones who place ourselves "in him"!

We are placed in Him through faith. I put my faith in Christ, He puts me in Him.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Now will you also claim that you choose to be placed "in Adam"?

Yes. I chose to sin. The wages of sin is death.

The elect to be "in Christ" means only that Christ is the federal head of the elect, and not that each individual could of himself choose to be in Christ.

I chose to trust Him. He did the rest.

Also....
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:27-30, "
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."


Did you see that?? Because of HIM you are in Christ. Not because of YOU!!!!

That is not what Paul is saying. He is saying that we can take no credit for our salvation. We did not and cannot earn it. It is given by God through Christ. This is Paul's message in all of his epistles. Did you see that? :laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Isaiah 42

1Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

That verse is about Jesus. The verse you cited earlier was about "us," not Jesus. So the question remains, where does Ephesians 1:4 talk about either Jesus being chosen as savior, or about faith?

 

[webdog]

That verse is about Jesus. The verse you cited earlier was about "us," not Jesus. So the question remains, where does Ephesians 1:4 talk about either Jesus being chosen as savior, or about faith?

If we are in Christ we are the elect, are you denying that simple truth?

 

[Pastor Larry]

If we are in Christ we are the elect, are you denying that simple truth?

Of course not. That's not the discussion here.

Can you be elect and not be in Christ?

 

[webdog]

Of course not. That's not the discussion here.

Can you be elect and not be in Christ?

Depends on how use use the word. Pharaoh and Judas were both chosen by God. The Israelites were also, and not all of them were counted as true Israel.

Christ Believers

Son Sons of God
Heir Heirs
Elect Elect

If Christ is God's Elect One, and we are in Christ, we are also God'e Elect ones.

 

[MB]

Of course not. That's not the discussion here.

Can you be elect and not be in Christ?

Of course we are elect in Christ but we are not born in Christ even though you may believe we are chosen before the foundation. Other wise there would be no need for Salvation because election would save.

Christ was elected before the foundation of the world not men. Yet in Christ we are elected before the foundation but only in Christ are we elect.
If we were elect before the foundation with out Christ our election would be our Salvation instead of Christ.
MB

 

[Pastor Larry]

Depends on how use use the word. Pharaoh and Judas were both chosen by God. The Israelites were also, and not all of them were counted as true Israel.

Remember the context here. We are talking about election to salvation.

If Christ is God's Elect One, and we are in Christ, we are also God'e Elect ones.

So can someone be elect and not be in Christ?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Of course we are elect in Christ but we are not born in Christ even though you may believe we are chosen before the foundation.

The Bible says we were chosen before the foundation of the world. So if you don't believe that, you don't believe the Bible. Other than that, I don't know what you are saying here. You are saying we can be elect before we are born in Christ. Is that correct? So to be elect doesn't mean to be "in Christ."

Christ was elected before the foundation of the world not men.

That's not what Eph 1:4 says. It says "we" (actually us) were chosen before the foundation of the world.

Yet in Christ we are elected before the foundation but only in Christ are we elect.

Yes. Which contradicts what you said above. Make up your mind. You can't say men were not elected before the foundation of the world and then say we were elected before the foundation of the world (unless you think we are not men).

I think we are seeing some of the desperation of incoherence here that results from someone desperately trying to avoid what the Bible says.

It says God chose "us." Why not simply accept that rather than create some elaborate scheme to avoid it?

If we were elect before the foundation with out Christ our election would be our Salvation instead of Christ.

No one is elected to salvation without respect to Christ and salvation.

 

[Jarthur001]

I think we are seeing some of the desperation of incoherence here that results from someone desperately trying to avoid what the Bible says.

It says God chose "us." Why not simply accept that rather than create some elaborate scheme to avoid it?

You are right pastor. This seems to be a huge problem, as we say in another post where one tries to change the subject of election to salvation, to another election, in order not to deal with the issue.

 

[Me4Him]

Before Adam sinned he was kept alive by spirit, after sin blood replaced the spirit,
Where did you get this from?

Did Jesus have blood to keep him alive after he was resurrected, or "Spirit"???


1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

1Jo 3:2 but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;

We sacrifce our bodies (flesh/blood) as an offering for our own personal sin, (Goat for the people) while the sins of the world are placed on the Scapegoat.

Perhaps this, like Webdog, is simply the result of not thinking through the issues carefully, but this is rank heresy. We do not sacrifice our bodies for our own personal sin. That is false doctrine.

You can't be saved unless you are "WILLING" to sacrifice the "Life of the flesh".

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Heb 9:22 and without shedding of blood is no remission. (of sin)

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,

Ga 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Nobody "Took" Jesus' life, he gave it up on his own free will, And if man want's to be saved he'll have to give up the life of the flesh of his own free will same as Jesus,

This is why the doctrine of "predestination" is wrong, chosing a life led by the flesh/blood or scarificing the flesh/blood for a life by the Spirit is a choice left up to each individual.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Larry;

I think we are seeing some of the desperation of incoherence here that results from someone desperately trying to avoid what the Bible says.

It says God chose "us." Why not simply accept that rather than create some elaborate scheme to avoid it?

Originally posted by praising Predestinarian:
You are right pastor. This seems to be a huge problem, as we say in another post where one tries to change the subject of election to salvation, to another election, in order not to deal with the issue.

The subject is the blessings “we” (both Jew and Gentile) receive in the promise and that is defined as “in” Christ. Having predestined “us” (Jew and Gentile) unto the adoption/having “foreordained” that “all” who “afterward” believed should enjoy the dignity of being sons of God.

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13)


Again the subject in Eph 1 is the blessings…in which Paul addresses the Gentiles in v13 after addressing the Jews in v12… about “the purpose of the promise” being made know unto us in a mystery of His will – the gracious “scheme of salvation” by faith, - that in the fullness of times He will gather “us” (believers, both Jews and Gentiles) …HOW?...”in” Him. (Eph 1:9.)

Talk about a “huge problem”…The Predestinarians purposely leave off the “IN Christ” and attempt to change the meaning to individual that which is contained in the subject and thereby force an interpretation of individual election to fit their flowery TULIP. See here what I mean…we got one Predestinarian (above) praising another’s dogma above him who just purposely left off the “in Christ” in his statements while he is suggesting that if you don’t believe “his” interpretation then you don’t believe the Bible:

Originally posted by the first Predestinarian:
The Bible says we were chosen before the foundation of the world. So if you don't believe that, you don't believe the Bible.

Tsk…tsk…talk about “avoiding”; ya’ll see how the “IN Christ” was left off???

Originally posted by that same Predestinarian:
That's not what Eph 1:4 says. It says "we" (actually us) were chosen before the foundation of the world.

See there how he not only misinterprets the “we” to fit his desperate scheme, claiming that others are “trying to avoid what the Bile says”, and also, yet again, leaves off the “IN Christ”?

The Word is written so that a child can understand it, if you read it for what it says without placing in the presuppositions of predestination. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide where the “huge problem is”, what is the “subject”, and if the “pastor is right” in the way he expounded the scriptural meanings.