The Doctrines of Grace

[OldRegular]

It appears to me that there are many on this Forum who do not understand the Doctrines of Grace, called Calvinism by many. My purpose in starting another thread on the Doctrines of Grace is:

1. In hope that those on this Board who believe the Doctrines of Grace will express their understanding of these Doctrines in a gracious manner, and

2. In hope that those who reject these Doctrines will respond in like manner.

A few years ago Dr Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, and Dr Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Seminary, had a most civil and brotherly discussion of their differing view on the Doctrine of Salvation.


The Reformation of Doctrine and the Renewal of the Church

Thursday, July 16, 2009

From: http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07...-the-church-a-response-to-dr-william-r-estep/

One of the most promising signs of renewal in Southern Baptist life is the emergence of genuine theological discussion and historical interest. After decades marked by the absence of significant interest in many doctrines, Southern Baptists are awakening to historic doctrinal debates in a new key.

As if awakened from doctrinal amnesia, the denomination faces the promise of both renewal and reformation. In this process, we may recover our theological heritage even as we address our modern context of ministry.

/snip/

The central tenet of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This is the starting point and the highest principle of Reformed theology. Calvinism is God-centered and draws its understanding of God directly from His self-revelation in Scripture. The God revealed in the Bible is the sovereign Creator, Ruler, and Redeemer. His omnipotence, omniscience, and governance over all things set this God of the Bible apart from all false gods.

The God of the Bible is the holy, ruling, limitless, acting, all-powerful God who makes nations to rise and to fall, who accomplishes His purposes, and who redeems His people. Arminianism–the theological system opposed to Calvinism–necessarily holds to a very different understanding of God, His power, and His government over all things.

Calvinism is most closely and accurately associated with the so-called “Doctrines of Grace,” which summarize the teaching of Scripture concerning the gospel. The Bible teaches us that we are born sinners, and are thus spiritually dead. Dead in our sins, we cannot on our own even respond to God’s grace. Thus, as Jesus told His disciples, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father” [John 6:65].

Further, the Bible makes clear that God has chosen a people “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” [I Peter 1:2]. Paul, in writing to the Ephesian church, states that the Father has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and “predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” [Ephesian 1:3-5]. The New Testament resounds with words including “chosen”, “election,” and “predestination.” The issue is not whether these are taught by Calvin, but whether they are taught in Scripture.

We would like to think that we are smart enough, spiritually sensitive enough, and responsive enough to chose to confess Christ without the prior work of God in our hearts. Unfortunately for our pride, this is not at all what the Bible reveals. God chooses us before we choose Him. As Southern Seminary president E. Y. Mullins stated, “God’s choice of a person is prior to that person’s choice of God, since God is infinite in wisdom and knowledge and will not make the success of the divine kingdom dependent on the contingent choices of people.”

Calvinism is nothing more and nothing less than the simple assertion that salvation is all of grace, from the beginning to the end. God saves sinners. Jesus Christ died for sinners. As Scripture promises, all those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The God of the Bible saves sinners, and holds those He has redeemed to the end. The vast majority of Southern Baptists hold to the doctrine known as the “Perseverance of the Saints,” but that precious promise makes sense only in terms of the doctrines of grace. Our choice of Christ is indeed necessary, but He has first chosen us–and He will keep us to the end.

Many Southern Baptists find predestination and other doctrines difficult to understand and even offensive to our pride. But we cannot read the New Testament without coming again and again to these doctrines.

[The above quotation is taken from the Blog of Dr. Mohler, president of the Southern {Baptist} Seminary. His remarks were in response to those by Dr. William R. Estep, a Southern Baptist historian. I have deleted reference to Dr. Estep in the title of the quote since nothing is mentioned about him in the quotation I present.]

 

[Revmitchell]

It appears to me that there are many on this Forum who do not understand the Doctrines of Grace, called Calvinism by many. My purpose in starting another thread on the Doctrines of Grace is:

1. In hope that those on this Board who believe the Doctrines of Grace will express their understanding of these Doctrines in a gracious manner, and

That would be quite a change.

 

[Greektim]

That would be quite a change.

And according to #2 it appears, we are off to a bad start.

 

[Greektim]

It is easier to express my views if I express how I arrived from a semi-pelagian/non-calvie view to the 5 pointer supralapsarian I am today.

I was indoctrinated w/ non-calvie teachings. But I always fudged back and forth. At the same time, I had difficulty w/ certain truths of the dispensational system as well. What i believed about the fulfillment of the New Covenant for future Israel was so calvinistic (it has to be, dispos), that it cause me to rethink my soteriology.

Then I started considering more and more the election of Abraham. I couldnt reckon with a different kind basis for election. If Abraham and Israel were preordained not based on their deeds but on God's love, then I felt that such a concept should correspond w/ individual election.

Then lastly, I couldn't get away from Rom. 3:10ff. I tried to harmonize it w/ my semi-pelagian theology, but to no avail. That no one desires God sealed it for me. I had to find a solution that took all of the above into account.

Calvinism was my only option. I felt it was the most biblical. It presents the inability of man and the free selection of God most clearly. We may not like the results, but it jived best w/ Scripture.

So I follow TULIP and reprobation. Now if that needs to be explained w/out straw men, I can do that later. Have to run for now.

 

[convicted1]

When I was lost, God called me. I reponded to that call, and He saved me. How is this not God honoring? Without Him calling me, I couldn't call out to Him.

 

[mont974x4]

I was in the Arminian camp myself for most of my life. Then a few years ago I committed myself to reading the Bible cover to cover for the first time. I saw God as sovereign over His creation in a totally new way. Everywhere I turned I saw people being called for one purpose or another and unable thwart God's plan by their self-will. As to salvation itself and the Doctrines of Grace, I could not get around Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. In a study of the Gospel of John I cannot help but see God choosing, calling, changing, etc the people He has chosen based solely on His own will.

Romans 8:28-30 is an excellent nutshell of the salvation process. Calvinism works out to be an excellent way to express these truths, or as a label to help people understand what God has said regarding Salvation. If I say I am a 5 point Calvinist or that I agree with TULIP that gives people a good direction to look. They can find a lot of resources defining these things with a quick search.

The bottomline is this:
Man is utterly sinful. There are no redeemable qualities within us that would coerce God to save one person over another. We do not even recognize sin as sin apart from God opening our eyes to it. If we are called there is no way our will can over-rule God's will. We will be saved, and it will happen according to His plan. We cannot save ourselves and we cannot keep ourselves saved. God, being God and being the Creator of all things and all people, has the authority to choose who chooses for whatever purpose He sees fit.

 

[The Archangel]

When I was lost, God called me. I responded to that call, and He saved me. How is this not God honoring? Without Him calling me, I couldn't call out to Him.

Willis,

I think your testimony here is perfectly God-honoring. And, to me, it seems like the proper order of things is kept: God acts first (calling you) and you responded.

And, for the record, you are a very gracious writer and, though I do not always agree with what you write, it is a pleasure to read your posts. There are some, on both sides, that resent each other for simply existing. This is neither helpful nor Christian in the sense of the "charity" we are to demonstrate to and for one another.

The issue most Calvinists have with non-Cals does not usually come up with you. You are neither militant nor rabid about those who don't see things the way you do.

You also don't seem to be what I will now begin calling a "Humanist-Christian." There are some here, the Humanist-Christians, who believe man's free will, in order to be true free will, must be able to thwart or trump God's will. In other words, the Humanist-Christian sees man as the "Yin" to God's "Yang"--two equal wills competing against one another for dominance. This idea reduces God to nothing more than a great cosmic hope-er and, inevitably, leads to the error we see in open theism. Of course, not every non-Calvinist fits that mold.

We take great umbrage to the idea that God is not ultimately sovereign in all things. We also take great umbrage to the idea that man can be saved without the necessary, called-for response of repentance and faith.

In any event, it seems your "testimony," though not, strictly-speaking, Calvinistic, is certainly Orthodox--something sorely lacking in many believers today.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

It is easier to express my views if I express how I arrived from a semi-pelagian/non-calvie view to the 5 pointer supralapsarian I am today.

I was indoctrinated w/ non-calvie teachings. But I always fudged back and forth. At the same time, I had difficulty w/ certain truths of the dispensational system as well. What i believed about the fulfillment of the New Covenant for future Israel was so calvinistic (it has to be, dispos), that it cause me to rethink my soteriology.

Then I started considering more and more the election of Abraham. I couldnt reckon with a different kind basis for election. If Abraham and Israel were preordained not based on their deeds but on God's love, then I felt that such a concept should correspond w/ individual election.

Election is according the the foreknowledge of the Father. God foresaw that Abraham would believe God when called. Abraham did believe God. Why did God choose to continue through Jacob and not Esau? Because God foresaw that Jacob would believe the promises given to his father Isaac and desired them, while Esau did not believe these promises and sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage.

Then lastly, I couldn't get away from Rom. 3:10ff. I tried to harmonize it w/ my semi-pelagian theology, but to no avail. That no one desires God sealed it for me. I had to find a solution that took all of the above into account.

The scriptures saying no man seeks God does not necessarily mean man is unable to seek God. If I were to say that none of my neighbors goes to church, no, not one, would you understand that to mean they are unable to go to church? NO, no one would get that impression, but that is what Calvinism assumes and reads into this scripture

Calvinism was my only option. I felt it was the most biblical. It presents the inability of man and the free selection of God most clearly. We may not like the results, but it jived best w/ Scripture.

The reason most do not like Calvinism is that it offends their natural sense of justice. Is it fair for persons to be punished for eternity because they were born with a sin nature that could not possibly believe? Is it fair to be condemned for sinning when you are born with a nature that compels you to sin? Not because you chose this nature, it was imposed on you at birth. Does this seem just?

I don't know about you, but this view seems absolutely unjust to me.

So I follow TULIP and reprobation. Now if that needs to be explained w/out straw men, I can do that later. Have to run for now.

There are explanations other than Calvinism that are scriptural.

 

[convicted1]

Willis,

I think your testimony here is perfectly God-honoring. And, to me, it seems like the proper order of things is kept: God acts first (calling you) and you responded.

Thank you ever so much for these kinds words...:love2: That's why I state I am neither Cal nor Arm, but some insist that we all have a label, so I state I am Arminian(minus forfeit of salvation/losing it, and that faith IS a gift of God). None of us, in our fallen, sinful state, will ever have a desire to come to Him. He must be the One who initiates the salvation process, because we sure can't, and won't.

And, for the record, you are a very gracious writer and, though I do not always agree with what you write, it is a pleasure to read your posts. There are some, on both sides, that resent each other for simply existing. This is neither helpful nor Christian in the sense of the "charity" we are to demonstrate to and for one another.

I disagree with the message, and NOT the messenger. I love all my Brethern, regardless of what camp they're in. Just because I might disagree with the Reformed view, there is not hatred towards them whatsoever.

The issue most Calvinists have with non-Cals does not usually come up with you. You are neither militant nor rabid about those who don't see things the way you do.

I wish all on here could agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Thumbing noses, one line pop-shot postings, etc doesn't shine a good light at all.

You also don't seem to be what I will now begin calling a "Humanist-Christian." There are some here, the Humanist-Christians, who believe man's free will, in order to be true free will, must be able to thwart or trump God's will. In other words, the Humanist-Christian sees man as the "Yin" to God's "Yang"--two equal wills competing against one another for dominance. This idea reduces God to nothing more than a great cosmic hope-er and, inevitably, leads to the error we see in open theism. Of course, not every non-Calvinist fits that mold.

You ever do yoga? The "Yin" and "Yang" wording makes think so. I believe in FW, but only free in regards to excepting, or rebelling against, God's call. All I can do is go by my experience. God called me for years, but in my haughtiness, I wouldn't come to Him. I was "self-sufficient", when, in reality, I was "self-deficient". Then I heard a message on Dan. chapter three, and realized that w/o Him, that fiery furnace was my eternal "home". I got scared of living w/o Him, and I began searching for Him by way of prayer, reading, going to church trying to figure out what to do in order to be saved. I had a Godly sorrow in my life, because there was a part of me that was so devoid, that only God could fill that space. No amount of drinking, partying, lacivious lifestyle could fill this void. I had it in my mind that if I'd quit sinning, He'd save me. I tried to make myself "saveable", but at the end of it all, I was still, lost, ruined, undone, destined for a devil's hell. One May 24th, 2007, at approx. 1:30 AM, God saved a sinner from his sins, because he couldn't save himself. Brother, God IS good to His creation.

We take great umbrage to the idea that God is not ultimately sovereign in all things. We also take great umbrage to the idea that man can be saved without the necessary, called-for response of repentance and faith.

I agree with this.

In any event, it seems your "testimony," though not, strictly-speaking, Calvinistic, is certainly Orthodox--something sorely lacking in many believers today.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Without Him saving me, I would be nothing, yea, less than nothing. May He richly bless you and your family.

 

[Amy.G]

Election is according the the foreknowledge of the Father. God foresaw that Abraham would believe God when called. Abraham did believe God. Why did God choose to continue through Jacob and not Esau? Because God foresaw that Jacob would believe the promises given to his father Isaac and desired them, while Esau did not believe these promises and sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage.

That is not what scripture says.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

God did not choose Jacob because he foresaw his faith. In fact there was nothing in Jacob to deserve being chosen. He was a liar and a thief.

 

[mont974x4]

That is not what scripture says.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

God did not choose Jacob because he foresaw his faith. In fact there was nothing in Jacob to deserve being chosen. He was a liar and a thief.

AMEN...and He saved a rowdy, drunk, so-and-so like me!

 

[Amy.G]

AMEN...and He saved a rowdy, drunk, so-and-so like me!

That's why it's called "grace"! :thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

In fact there was nothing in Jacob to deserve being chosen. He was a liar and a thief.

What in his post led you to believe that is what he said?

 

[The Archangel]

That is not what scripture says.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

God did not choose Jacob because he foresaw his faith. In fact there was nothing in Jacob to deserve being chosen. He was a liar and a thief.

How true!

There are some interesting things we see in Genesis as much of Genesis has to do with God's sovereign choice.

Here's what we know from the plot-line:

-Abram was worshiping other gods when God called him (We find this out in Joshua)

-Abram was not the most faithful of followers.

-Isaac sinned the same ways that Abraham did, and Isaac likely was not the father to Jacob and Esau he should have been.

-Esau was, frankly, a godless pagan (there is debate to whether he repented later or not, but the evidence is ultimately inconclusive)

-Jacob was nothing more than a low-life scoundrel who fathered his children so poorly that all but the sons of Rachel became thugs.

​

Yet, in Genesis, we see God engineering absolutely everything to make these faithless people into faithful patriarchs. There is a remarkable transformation from faithlessness to faithfulness in the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Judah (and the other non-Rachael sons).

God simply chose Abraham--and his offspring--and worked long and hard to transform them from hopeless, faithless rebels to loyal, faithful subjects.

It is remarkable.

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

Willis,..........

And, for the record, you are a very gracious writer and, though I do not always agree with what you write, it is a pleasure to read your posts.
Blessings,

The Archangel

Please Archangel! Don't feed his ego! :laugh:

:love2:

 

[convicted1]

Please Archangel! Don't feed his ego! :laugh:

:love2:

Wellll, I do like to eat....:laugh:

 

[Winman]

That is not what scripture says.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

God did not choose Jacob because he foresaw his faith. In fact there was nothing in Jacob to deserve being chosen. He was a liar and a thief.

Faith is not something good in man, it is man recognizing good in Jesus and trusting him.

Luk 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

We know the story of the two malefactors (criminals) who were crucified with Jesus. At first, they both railed on him. But somehow, one criminal came to realize that Jesus was the Lord, and that he had not committed any sin.

This criminal did not boast, but confessed he was a sinner and worthy of the death he was about to experience. He asked for only the smallest mercy, that Jesus would remember him when he came into his kingdom.

Because of his tiny faith in Jesus, Jesus rewarded him and told him he would be paradise with him that day. The malefactor asked only to be remembered, but Jesus forgave all his sins and granted him eternal life.

Faith is not a work, it is always contrasted to works. Faith is not looking at one's self, it is looking away from self and looking to God and Jesus. It is believing that God is good and merciful, slow to anger, and quick to forgive. Any man who comes to Jesus in dependence and faith will be saved.

Faith is the criminal on the cross, confessing he is a sinner and asking Jesus "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom".

Faith is the publican in the temple who would not look up, but beat upon his chest and cried, "God be merciful to me, a sinner".

Faith is not a work, faith is to abandon all hope of saving one's self and casting ourselves upon Jesus and depending on him alone to save us. It is a ceasing of all work.

If you believe that faith is a work, then you believe you are saved by works, because all men must believe to be saved.

Think about that a few minutes.

 

[quantumfaith]

It is easier to express my views if I express how I arrived from a semi-pelagian/non-calvie view to the 5 pointer supralapsarian I am today.

I was indoctrinated w/ non-calvie teachings. But I always fudged back and forth. At the same time, I had difficulty w/ certain truths of the dispensational system as well. What i believed about the fulfillment of the New Covenant for future Israel was so calvinistic (it has to be, dispos), that it cause me to rethink my soteriology.

Then I started considering more and more the election of Abraham. I couldnt reckon with a different kind basis for election. If Abraham and Israel were preordained not based on their deeds but on God's love, then I felt that such a concept should correspond w/ individual election.

Then lastly, I couldn't get away from Rom. 3:10ff. I tried to harmonize it w/ my semi-pelagian theology, but to no avail. That no one desires God sealed it for me. I had to find a solution that took all of the above into account.

Calvinism was my only option. I felt it was the most biblical. It presents the inability of man and the free selection of God most clearly. We may not like the results, but it jived best w/ Scripture.

So I follow TULIP and reprobation. Now if that needs to be explained w/out straw men, I can do that later. Have to run for now.

Appreciate your honesty.

 

[Amy.G]

If you believe that faith is a work, then you believe you are saved by works, because all men must believe to be saved.

Think about that a few minutes.

I have never said faith is a work. I don't need to think about it.


You said Jacob was chosen over Esau "because" he had faith and Esau didn't. Therefore you are making a distinction when the scriptures say there wasn't one. "Neither" had done anything good, bad or otherwise. Jacob was chosen according to God's will and His purpose ONLY, and He did it before they were born, before Jacob had faith.

 

[quantumfaith]

Willis,

I think your testimony here is perfectly God-honoring. And, to me, it seems like the proper order of things is kept: God acts first (calling you) and you responded.

And, for the record, you are a very gracious writer and, though I do not always agree with what you write, it is a pleasure to read your posts. There are some, on both sides, that resent each other for simply existing. This is neither helpful nor Christian in the sense of the "charity" we are to demonstrate to and for one another.

The issue most Calvinists have with non-Cals does not usually come up with you. You are neither militant nor rabid about those who don't see things the way you do.

You also don't seem to be what I will now begin calling a "Humanist-Christian." There are some here, the Humanist-Christians, who believe man's free will, in order to be true free will, must be able to thwart or trump God's will. In other words, the Humanist-Christian sees man as the "Yin" to God's "Yang"--two equal wills competing against one another for dominance. This idea reduces God to nothing more than a great cosmic hope-er and, inevitably, leads to the error we see in open theism. Of course, not every non-Calvinist fits that mold.

We take great umbrage to the idea that God is not ultimately sovereign in all things. We also take great umbrage to the idea that man can be saved without the necessary, called-for response of repentance and faith.

In any event, it seems your "testimony," though not, strictly-speaking, Calvinistic, is certainly Orthodox--something sorely lacking in many believers today.

Blessings,

The Archangel

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Do you really see "humanist christianity" displayed here in BB land? Perhaps I am too biased to notice it? (Not sarcasm)