middle ground

Pardon? Calvinism is saying that we have to be "elect" (which they deem to be "saved") in order to believe, friend. For them, in theory, only the elect/saved will believe and if we believe then we are already saved. In that case, there is nothing left for us to "do" to be saved.

Which leads me to this point --- the only thing left is to "sanctify" that which is elect/saved already. So they keep serving and serving -- sanctifying and sanctifying -- in an effort to prove and assure they were saved to begin with!

So they believe in order to be sanctified but, in many cases, not to be saved. It's the "works" thing that they got from the Catholics "bleeding over" into their theology. Instead of Catholicism's "faith + works = salvation," Calvinists end up with faith = salvation + works (which, simplifying the right side of the equation, gives us "faith = sanctification" because "salvation + works = sanctification").

skypair

 

You're being UNREASONABLE, MK!! :laugh:

Why on both -- I shall have to bring my quote back. Hold on :sleeping_2:

Both Calvinists and free will believe that God has a plan for those who are saved. That plan is called "election" or "sanctification" -- what we do in THIS LIFE! Another phrase for these is God's "purpose for our lives." Both sides agree on this for sure! Both sides agree that it is 1) predestined and 2) totally accomplished through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, too!

Justification means that we can go to heaven when we die. We should perceive it in this life because God will be enthroned in our SOUL by a willful act on our behalf and self has made a "life decision" to obey Him (This is the truth behind Rev 3:20 -- answer Jesus "knock" at your "door").

The soul is the equivalent of God in the trinity --- He is the Highest Authority among the Three. Our soul is the highest authority (our conscience) in our life! Most of our actions can be submitted to our SOUL before we act and from there, God can be the "Guider" of our paths IF we have made that life-changing decision (that Calvinists downplay when the denounce the "sinner's prayer" as not "efficacious" -- they'd rather you do nothing of the sort because that is us exercising sovereignty over God!)!!

Anyway, Calvinists have not yet understood this dicotomy of soul and spirit. If they did, they would see that salvation does NOT equal sanctification but justification first, then sanctification (what they are trying to accomplish) and lastly glorification.

skypair

 

I think she got your point and it wasn't in good taste, bro.

skypair

 

:laugh: :laugh: ...Bully! :laugh:

 

Skypair, I've decided it's best if I don't respond to you on these forums. Statements like this one are part of the reasons for that.

Calvinists do not deem "elect" to be "saved." I know, because I am one. You should know, because I've explained this to you before, and more than once.

• Election does not = salvation.
• Election is not a synonym for salvation.
• Elect is not a synonym for saved.
• Election leads to salvation.
• Election is necessary for salvation.

• Election is a step on the road to salvation
• Election brings salvation.
• The elect will be saved.
• Election leads to faith, by which people are saved.
• Election brings faith, by which people are saved.
• The elect will believe, and so they will be saved.

But election is not salvation, nor is election "deemed to be" salvation.

Perhaps you just forget, but nevertheless, that you keep on misrepresenting the Calvinist view after you've been corrected over and over makes discussion with you extremely frustrating. I just don't have the patience for it anymore.

Menagerie Keeper, I'll answer your posts in response to me tomorrow.

 

russ -- sorry you lose patience. Patience, though, is one thing we are supposed to draw on as Christians among brothers.

You would be unique among Calvinists then, russ. Would it be fair to say that even you believe the "elect" are regenerated before they believe? And which one is required for salvation -- belief or "election?" belief or regeneration?

skypair

 

That's simple, but I'd rather use the context of "whosoever believes". The expression "whosoever believes" is just another way of saying "those who believe". Look at the surrounding context of the verse John 3:16. It's not a "whosoever" as in "we don't know who, it's up to you". It's a "whosoever" qualified by "believes".

The verse makes just as much sense if you change the qualification to something that is not open to free will. The verse, "...that whosoever is six feet tall or taller should not perish but..." still has the word "whosoever" in it, but the word "whosoever" does not leave any room for free will in this case. You can't choose to be six feet tall or taller of your own free will, yet "whosoever" is still there.

The bottom line is that "whosoever believes" or "whosoever will" simply tells you "those who believe" and "those who will". These words do NOT tell you anything about WHY one believes and another does not. They do not tell you WHY one wills and another does not. These verses do not prove free will, and they do not prove election. They simply identify a people -- those who believe, or those who will.

 

The explanation involves the notion of trinity. Hope you are ready. :love2:

God, Spirit, and Christ are One God in 3 Persons. We are soul, spirit, and body in one person. In order to redeem us to Himself, God took on this triune nature in order to bring us to Him on all 3 levels: in order to

1) immediately and eternally JUSTIFY our SOULS with His righteousness (see all the OT citations on this),

2) then progressively to SANCTIFY our SPIRITS with His Spirit (His mind -- note, this is the "new covenant" heart of flesh/mind of Christ), and finally to

3) GLORIFY our BODIES like unto His eventually.

Remember when Adam fell? He died in his soul immediately, in his spirit progressively, and in body eventually. Same thing God has to do in reverse to save us.

Now Calvinists do not perceive a soul-spirit distinction. Why? It seems so that they can go direct to the sanctification phase because their theology assumes that if they can "hear," then they are already justified. Or alternatively, I've heard them say they grow into salvation (which is really growing into phase #2 of salvation without being justified to begin with). This to me is the danger -- because they "do" nothing toward being justified before God [re: they claim to "hear" the knock on the door but claim they did not open it themselves, Rev 3:20], they miss salvation altogether because you can't go to step #2 before you accomplish step #1! (I'm not aware of anyone here that came this way -- just saying that this is where the theology would lead.)

skypair

 

I think it is a proper conclusion. Virtually every Calvinist believes that God saves whosoever will. However, I am not sure we can not "withstand" rom 8:29.

 

Yeah, and "whosoever" qualifies "believes" as well! It's not just certain ones that believe -- it's "whosoever," ANYONE.

I pity you believing your own rationalizations, npet. I hope you don't confess your sins to God like that.

skypair

 

Yes. No calvinist denies that people have a decision to make when the gospel is proclaimed to them. Anyone who hears the gospel must decided whether they will trust Christ for their salvation or reject him.

 

The only thing any person must do in order to be saved is believe, and absolutely anyone who believes is saved.

And those who do believe have been chosen by God in eternity past.

 

Yes.. both are true... Depending on perspective.

See how easy it is to be in the middle....
You just agree with both sides!!! :thumbsup: :laugh:

Because the Bible supports both sides...

:tonofbricks:

 

Yes, this is Calvinism.

Someone said "Rom 8:29" not withstanding. My point is that you have to deal with Rom 8:29 just as with every other verse. There are a great many on the "nonCal" side of this debate who want to ignore certain verses.

Belief is what he must do to be saved. Scxripture is clear on that. Why does he believe? Because he was chosen.

You say, "So he must be chosen and believe to be saved?" as if that is addiing something to belief. But that's the equivalent of savying "He must be chosen, alive, and believe." There are all kinds of logical necessities that we must put in there are "conditions" for salvation if we are going to play that game. That's not the way that the Bible puts it however, and it is not the way that we should put it.

 

This is incoherent. It makes no sense. The conditional/unconditional issue is over election.

 

Sounds like the "Norm Geisler" solution.

skypair