The common ground.

[George Antonios]

I won't say it doesn't happen. I will say I never ever heard of it, even among some pretty high Calvinists.

Check out pastor Brian Dupont in Edmonton, AB. He knows a circle of Calvinist Baptist pastors who believe that.
And of course, a "high" Calvinist is another name for a "consistent" Calvinist.

 

[DaveXR650]

If I understand correctly, you view “election” in a general way… that is that God’s election is to those who believe the gospel. Therefore, God’s election “before the foundation of the world” is not for specific people but rather the process by which someone would become elect… when he believes.

I disagree. I believe scripture teaches its election of specific people to salvation.

I think it is also possible to believe that God has an "elect" that he has chosen - but that they will be saved because the Holy Spirit convicts and helps them understand the word or preaching and then they believe and are saved. Everyone does not experience this conviction equally. This is different from classical Calvinism because the electing is done when the Holy Spirit moves to convict certain people and not others. The sovereignty occurs at that point, not at the atonement or before time - even though God would know and have in his mind who they were from eternity past. Some believe also that a person can reject or put off this divine calling and or continue in sin and God may judicially decide to stop convicting which will mean the person will not be saved.

The above allows for there to be a non limited atonement, for faith to be a condition of salvation, and for grace to be resistible. It also allows for election to be unconditional in the sense that God is acting in a totally sovereign way yet it is conditional in that something is required of the person who is saved - namely faith. I throw this out there because of the OP and because I have found that a lot of Calvinist Puritans and conservative traditional non-Calvinist Baptists preach this way.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Some Primitive Baptists even believe that everyone is going to heaven.

 

[AVL1984]

I think it is also possible to believe that God has an "elect" that he has chosen - but that they will be saved because the Holy Spirit convicts and helps them understand the word or preaching and then they believe and are saved. Everyone does not experience this conviction equally. This is different from classical Calvinism because the electing is done when the Holy Spirit moves to convict certain people and not others. The sovereignty occurs at that point, not at the atonement or before time - even though God would know and have in his mind who they were from eternity past. Some believe also that a person can reject or put off this divine calling and or continue in sin and God may judicially decide to stop convicting which will mean the person will not be saved.

The above allows for there to be a non limited atonement, for faith to be a condition of salvation, and for grace to be resistible. It also allows for election to be unconditional in the sense that God is acting in a totally sovereign way yet it is conditional in that something is required of the person who is saved - namely faith. I throw this out there because of the OP and because I have found that a lot of Calvinist Puritans and conservative traditional non-Calvinist Baptists preach this way.

Reading through your post, I have to ask.....if the "sovereignty occurs at that point, not at the atonement or before that time" then are you saying God isn't sovereign all the time? That seems to be the implication unless I'm reading you wrong. I've highlighted the portion I'm speaking of above.

 

[DaveXR650]

Reading through your post, I have to ask.....if the "sovereignty occurs at that point, not at the atonement or before that time" then are you saying God isn't sovereign all the time? That seems to be the implication unless I'm reading you wrong. I've highlighted the portion I'm speaking of above.

I was trying to say that you can believe that the atonement was unlimited and that Christ's death was for everyone. And you can still believe that there is an "election" of individuals based only on God's sovereignty. This works if you believe that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by the Holy Spirit. So those whom God elected he draws to himself and that is the point of God doing his choosing because everyone is not drawn equally, or in the same way, or at all. And it also leaves room for a belief that some may be drawn but reject the grace offered - without being a total free willer.

I'm not pushing that as the truth, I just was commenting on the OP which was about "common ground". Your point is well taken. If God is sovereign it really doesn't matter exactly where he does the choosing. It's just that a lot of folks don't like the idea of a "limited atonement", as being the reason everyone is not saved, but they don't want to go all the way to a total free will salvation.

 

[37818]

On the basis of the Calvinist/Gnostic notion of unilateral, divine, pre-creation, criterion-less, pre-selection unto salvation.

How are any of those have a Biblical basis to keep one's name in the book? What references?

 

[George Antonios]

How are any of those have a Biblical basis to keep one's name in the book? What references?

I don't think Rev.20:15 is a problem for them.
Rev.3:5 is more of a problem (because of the warning of the possibility of blotting out a name) for the Gnostic Calvinist mindset but I suppose the primitives would answer Rev.3:5 the way any Calvinist would.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Check out pastor Brian Dupont in Edmonton, AB. He knows a circle of Calvinist Baptist pastors who believe that.

Never heard of him.

And of course, a "high" Calvinist is another name for a "consistent" Calvinist.

Only among Pelagians.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Some Primitive Baptists even believe that everyone is going to heaven.

They identify as universalists… just like other Baptist Universalists

 

[George Antonios]

Never heard of him.

Only among Pelagians.

How rich.
I'm certain a man such as yourself is read up on a little history.
Pelagius is the root of Calvinism.
Augustine rightly claimed that salvation was by faith without works.
It was Pelagius, dear brother, who replied that 'faith is a work' arguing that Augustine thus contradicted himself.
Augustine, being of dim scriptural understanding of salvation (I've read hundreds of pages of his works) and falling for Pelagius' confounding of the works of the law with human volition (a confounding the Calvinist brethren have inherited from Pelagius) found himself bested by the argument (as many non-Calvinists still are when first faced with that sleight-of-hand confounding).
He was therefore forced to draw from the well of his former deterministic Manichaeism (all gnostic religions are deterministic, incidentally) and came up with the "actually it's God that makes us believe and so salvific faith is therefore not a work of man" counter-argument.
Then he mined the scriptures for proof-texts whose tenor resonated with his gnostic philosophy now fitted in Christian garb.

Calvinism therefore, you see, was unwittingly inseminated in Augustine by Pelagius and Manichaeism, and then unwittingly injected into Christian soteriology by Augustine.
That is why there are no Christian "Calvinist" authors before the 5th-century Augustine of Hippo.
No one else understood the "Calvinist" texts the way he did before him.

But who's listening...

The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism by Ken Wilson

 

[AustinC]

Most likely this truth will not settle the Arminian Calvinist divide.

In either case, the notion belief precedes regeneration or regeneration precedes belief, hearing the word of God precedes in both views.

Hebrews 4:12, ". . . For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . ."

[ John 17:17, Romans 10:17. ]

This verse actually settles the debate. The question is if you know why it settles the debate.

 

[AustinC]

But some don't. They think the gospel is tainted and becomes false if you say you must believe in order to be saved.

Here's the thing.
We must believe. This is a fact.
The debate is whether the belief causes God to save or whether the belief is the effect of God's salvation.
However, there is no debate in the fact that we must believe.

 

[AustinC]

It would be rare, imo, to find somebody actually using those terms (faith meriting salvation).

I recall asking someone what was the difference between their believing the gospel and another rejecting the gospel. They told me me “I had sense enough to believe”.

I would consider that response simply not understanding the implications of what they said, rather than thinking they believed they merited their salvation by faith.

I’m sure there are people who do think that, but again, it would probably be rare, especially in Baptist circles.

peace to you

Does faith cause God to save you?
Or...
Does God cause you to have faith as an effect of being saved?

There is at least one person on this board who teaches that faith, before salvation, causes God to declare that person's faith to be righteous, which causes God to save and chose that person.

 

[AustinC]

How rich.
I'm certain a man such as yourself is read up on a little history.
Pelagius is the root of Calvinism.
Augustine rightly claimed that salvation was by faith without works.
It was Pelagius, dear brother, who replied that 'faith is a work' arguing that Augustine thus contradicted himself.
Augustine, being of dim scriptural understanding of salvation (I've read hundreds of pages of his works) and falling for Pelagius' confounding of the works of the law with human volition (a confounding the Calvinist brethren have inherited from Pelagius) found himself bested by the argument (as many non-Calvinists still are when first faced with that sleight-of-hand confounding).
He was therefore forced to draw from the well of his former deterministic Manichaeism (all gnostic religions are deterministic, incidentally) and came up with the "actually it's God that makes us believe and so salvific faith is therefore not a work of man" counter-argument.
Then he mined the scriptures for proof-texts whose tenor resonated with his gnostic philosophy now fitted in Christian garb.

Calvinism therefore, you see, was unwittingly inseminated in Augustine by Pelagius and Manichaeism, and then unwittingly injected into Christian soteriology by Augustine.
That is why there are no Christian "Calvinist" authors before the 5th-century Augustine of Hippo.
No one else understood the "Calvinist" texts the way he did before him.

But who's listening...

The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism by Ken Wilson

Well, it's clear that Ken Wilson is an idiot or a clueless man. I do appreciate you sharing where you get your ideas from.

 

[George Antonios]

Well, it's clear that Ken Wilson is an idiot or a clueless man. I do appreciate you sharing where you get your ideas from.

Yet again, the insulting, off-hand, unexplained condemnation/rejection.
The work cited was his doctoral thesis. Of course, that does not automatically make it right.
But would you please care to first challenge his historical claims which he sources in detail before you jump to:
"guy's an idiot".
Such replies only strengthen the point made because it shows there is no reply to be offered.

If you will not challenge the claims presented in the post directly, then I'd rather continue the conversation with @Martin Marprelate. At least when he disagrees, he seeks to construct a point.

 

[DaveXR650]

Does faith cause God to save you?
Or...
Does God cause you to have faith as an effect of being saved?

The debate is whether the belief causes God to save or whether the belief is the effect of God's salvation.
However, there is no debate in the fact that we must believe.

Faith is the soul's uniting with Christ or receiving the pardon that Christ provides or taking God at his word and trusting him to save you. With that definition I don't think faith can be considered a work and I think that it is not incorrect to say that it is a "condition" that is required in order to be saved. All Calvinists and Arminians that I know believe this.

As to the order of this happening in regards to regeneration or whether it is a gift is debated but there is common ground in the above. The charge of some Calvinists on this site, that the regular Baptists and Arminians make faith a work is false. It is possible to make faith the grounds for salvation, where your faith itself provides the merit or the reason you can be saved. That indeed would be a heresy. The merit is only Christ and his atonement.

 

[AustinC]

Faith is the soul's uniting with Christ or receiving the pardon that Christ provides or taking God at his word and trusting him to save you. With that definition I don't think faith can be considered a work and I think that it is not incorrect to say that it is a "condition" that is required in order to be saved. All Calvinists and Arminians that I know believe this.

As to the order of this happening in regards to regeneration or whether it is a gift is debated but there is common ground in the above. The charge of some Calvinists on this site, that the regular Baptists and Arminians make faith a work is false. It is possible to make faith the grounds for salvation, where your faith itself provides the merit or the reason you can be saved. That indeed would be a heresy. The merit is only Christ and his atonement.

I hope you realize that you never actually answered the question.
Is faith the cause or the effect?
If it's the cause, then it is a work.
If faith is the effect, then God does the work.

What I see is a whole bunch of people dancing around the question rather than he honest.

 

[AustinC]

Yet again, the insulting, off-hand, unexplained condemnation/rejection.
The work cited was his doctoral thesis. Of course, that does not automatically make it right.
But would you please care to first challenge his historical claims which he sources in detail before you jump to:
"guy's an idiot".
Such replies only strengthen the point made because it shows there is no reply to be offered.

If you will not challenge the claims presented in the post directly, then I'd rather continue the conversation with @Martin Marprelate. At least when he disagrees, he seeks to construct a point.

Well, MLK had a doctoral thesis as well and he rejected the Trinity. So simply having a doctoral dissertation does not make his opinion worth more than the paper it was written on.
Your post showed terrible understanding of church history, but it sure is a narrative that those who despise the Supremacy of God would support.

 

[canadyjd]

Does faith cause God to save you?
Or...
Does God cause you to have faith as an effect of being saved?

There is at least one person on this board who teaches that faith, before salvation, causes God to declare that person's faith to be righteous, which causes God to save and chose that person.

God Holy Spirit regenerates us (not yet saved), we respond with God given faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified (not yet saved) and are then indwelt by God Holy Spirit.

God Holy Spirit indwelling is the mark/down payment that we are children of God…. Saved.. which means we are in a right relationship with God.

We are elected by God before the foundation of the world to be in a right relationship with God which God accomplished by the work of God Holy Spirit in regeneration, conviction etc… saved by grace through faith and then indwelt by God Holy Spirit.

The final result is our salvation which means we are in a right relationship with God.

We respond to God’s work in salvation. Salvation is a work of God from election to standing in His presence in heaven.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

Well, MLK had a doctoral thesis as well and he rejected the Trinity. So simply having a doctoral dissertation does not make his opinion worth more than the paper it was written on.

I qualified my statement with

The work cited was his doctoral thesis. Of course, that does not automatically make it right.

Did you intentionally ignore that?

Your post showed terrible understanding of church history, but it sure is a narrative that those who despise the Supremacy of God would support.

Again I say

Yet again, the insulting, off-hand, unexplained condemnation/rejection.
The work cited was his doctoral thesis. Of course, that does not automatically make it right.
But would you please care to first challenge his historical claims which he sources in detail before you jump to:
"guy's an idiot".
Such replies only strengthen the point made because it shows there is no reply to be offered.

If you will not challenge the claims presented in the post directly, then I'd rather continue the conversation with @Martin Marprelate. At least when he disagrees, he seeks to construct a point.

Challenge our claims with appeals to fact of church history. Not insults.

it sure is a narrative that those who despise the Supremacy of God would support.

God does not respond positively to sycophancy.

Job 13:8 Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?