Greetings to all my brothers in Christ.
Most all that have come from the Reformed trajectory, not necessarily just those that are properly called the Reformed, consistently and rightly apply the biblical teaching that God is the pre-planner of all experiences and is sovereign and in control over all. He elects, He calls, He saves, He judges. To God goes all the glory of creation and salvation.
But what is frequently neglected and misapplied due to either oversight or a desire to achieve a process theology, many have neglected the biblical concept of Responsibility. First, most all that spring from the Reformed trajectory rightly affirm, except possibly a Hyper Calvinist, that (A) sinners are not condemned because they are not the elect. Sinners are condemned, according to the historical Reformed theology, because they willingly suppress the knowledge of God, do not believe, and they truly desire to stay in their sin.
Those that do not believe, truly and justly are responsible through their unbelief for their own damnation. Thus, there is a theological emphasis placed on the biblical nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’ regarding the non-elect. When it comes to the non-elect and their own part in this damnation, the focus is their own unbelief. It is not God’s fault nor God’s doing that they are damned, although God is the justifier, He is most certainly also just and He demonstrates such in his holy and just ways. In the minds of most all that spring from the Reformed trajectory, except possibly again the Hyper Calvinist, the non-beliving is said to have a role in the nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’. Further, they are damned because of it.
On the flip side of that same concept of Responsibility, (B) when speaking of the elect, the nexus of this ‘belief vs unbelief’ is nothing less than absent in the minds of some who have sprung from the Reformed trajectory. On the one hand they see the theology of the non-believing as being responsible and culpable for their unbelief in this nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’. Yet, those that are said to believe are said to have no role in their belief, for God has provided everything including their own faith. The elect then, according to this logic, would seem to have no responsibility in this nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’. And what responsibility is claimed they have is seemingly only window dressing, for it is quickly claimed that faith is given. Instead of reconciling biblical Sovereignty and Responsibility as John Calvin even attempted, many take a simpler binary position on one side or the other. On the one side, the elect having no role and on the other man possibly having too much of a role.
The binary position of no role at all is even contrary the teaching of Mr. Calvinist himself, John Calvin. John Calvin writes, setting the stage in his analysis of Sovereignty and Responsibility, “On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man” (John Calvin Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9). Addressing the concept of sovereignty Calvin writes that when looking at God, “God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace” (John Calvin Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9).
But then Calvin turns to the equally important concept of responsibility and writes, “The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.
John Calvin, as is done in all proper formulations of Reformed thought regarding biblical principles, balances sovereignty and responsibility, for not only the non-believing but also those that believe (the elect). To Calvin, faith “brings a man empty to God” and “we bring nothing but faith” (JC Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9). What is faith empty of when man brings it? Boasting and merit of course. Thus, to John Calvin it would appear that man’s role, even though it is man’s responsibility, adds nothing of substance to their salvation. Salvation is God’s work, those that received it do so through faith (which they bring as their role and responsibility). John Calvin here in his commentaries appears to attempt to reconcile the biblical concepts of Sovereignty and Responsibility without throwing his hands up and just taking a binary view and saying something like, man has no role.
Now of course there then comes the dispute on whether this faith is first enabled or not. But regardless of this next theological question, both the believing and non-believing are responsible for their own nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’ moment(s) according to Scripture. We are told we need to believe repeatedly in the Bible. How that works exactly is unclear to me. Meaning, how God can be totally sovereign and it be compatible with both the believing and unbelieving have a culpable and responsible role in their own ‘belief vs unbelief’ eludes my finite mind when drilling down to the point of undisputed proof. Hence why I am a Compatablist. But there is no doubt about it, both the believing and non-believing have responsibility in the ‘belief vs unbelief’ nexus. The Bible teaches both sovereignty and responsibility. Regardless of that responsibility, i.e., man’s role, God is still, has and always will be, sovereign and in control over all. Worthy of receiving all the credit for our salvation.
Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)
Most all that have come from the Reformed trajectory, not necessarily just those that are properly called the Reformed, consistently and rightly apply the biblical teaching that God is the pre-planner of all experiences and is sovereign and in control over all. He elects, He calls, He saves, He judges. To God goes all the glory of creation and salvation.
But what is frequently neglected and misapplied due to either oversight or a desire to achieve a process theology, many have neglected the biblical concept of Responsibility. First, most all that spring from the Reformed trajectory rightly affirm, except possibly a Hyper Calvinist, that (A) sinners are not condemned because they are not the elect. Sinners are condemned, according to the historical Reformed theology, because they willingly suppress the knowledge of God, do not believe, and they truly desire to stay in their sin.
Those that do not believe, truly and justly are responsible through their unbelief for their own damnation. Thus, there is a theological emphasis placed on the biblical nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’ regarding the non-elect. When it comes to the non-elect and their own part in this damnation, the focus is their own unbelief. It is not God’s fault nor God’s doing that they are damned, although God is the justifier, He is most certainly also just and He demonstrates such in his holy and just ways. In the minds of most all that spring from the Reformed trajectory, except possibly again the Hyper Calvinist, the non-beliving is said to have a role in the nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’. Further, they are damned because of it.
On the flip side of that same concept of Responsibility, (B) when speaking of the elect, the nexus of this ‘belief vs unbelief’ is nothing less than absent in the minds of some who have sprung from the Reformed trajectory. On the one hand they see the theology of the non-believing as being responsible and culpable for their unbelief in this nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’. Yet, those that are said to believe are said to have no role in their belief, for God has provided everything including their own faith. The elect then, according to this logic, would seem to have no responsibility in this nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’. And what responsibility is claimed they have is seemingly only window dressing, for it is quickly claimed that faith is given. Instead of reconciling biblical Sovereignty and Responsibility as John Calvin even attempted, many take a simpler binary position on one side or the other. On the one side, the elect having no role and on the other man possibly having too much of a role.
The binary position of no role at all is even contrary the teaching of Mr. Calvinist himself, John Calvin. John Calvin writes, setting the stage in his analysis of Sovereignty and Responsibility, “On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man” (John Calvin Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9). Addressing the concept of sovereignty Calvin writes that when looking at God, “God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace” (John Calvin Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9).
But then Calvin turns to the equally important concept of responsibility and writes, “The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.
John Calvin, as is done in all proper formulations of Reformed thought regarding biblical principles, balances sovereignty and responsibility, for not only the non-believing but also those that believe (the elect). To Calvin, faith “brings a man empty to God” and “we bring nothing but faith” (JC Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9). What is faith empty of when man brings it? Boasting and merit of course. Thus, to John Calvin it would appear that man’s role, even though it is man’s responsibility, adds nothing of substance to their salvation. Salvation is God’s work, those that received it do so through faith (which they bring as their role and responsibility). John Calvin here in his commentaries appears to attempt to reconcile the biblical concepts of Sovereignty and Responsibility without throwing his hands up and just taking a binary view and saying something like, man has no role.
Now of course there then comes the dispute on whether this faith is first enabled or not. But regardless of this next theological question, both the believing and non-believing are responsible for their own nexus of ‘belief vs unbelief’ moment(s) according to Scripture. We are told we need to believe repeatedly in the Bible. How that works exactly is unclear to me. Meaning, how God can be totally sovereign and it be compatible with both the believing and unbelieving have a culpable and responsible role in their own ‘belief vs unbelief’ eludes my finite mind when drilling down to the point of undisputed proof. Hence why I am a Compatablist. But there is no doubt about it, both the believing and non-believing have responsibility in the ‘belief vs unbelief’ nexus. The Bible teaches both sovereignty and responsibility. Regardless of that responsibility, i.e., man’s role, God is still, has and always will be, sovereign and in control over all. Worthy of receiving all the credit for our salvation.
Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)