Wherein lieth your Confidence?

[BobRyan]

Helen--and HP: I'm not going to debate this subject. Others are better qualified. But I will try to explain why both Cals and non-Cals agree that election is from eternity.

Non-Cals hold that election is based on God's forseeing faith in a person and elects him accordingly. I believe that takes place in eternity since there is not a time when God did not know or forsee that person's faith. Non-Cals may believe that one who is saved is thus elected, in time. But in the mind of God, who is above time, that salvation, and election, is an accomplished fact from eternity.

True - God forseeing the future and all the results of His work in the gospel fully knows who will freely accept and who will freely reject using the free will He has given to both.

But these are two entirely different definitions for elect.

In the 4 and 5 point model elect is "arbitrarily select A over B".

In the Arminian "foresees" view "it is BOTH A and B drawn with the SAME all consuming love an passion for the lost, yet A uses free will to choose life and B uses free will to choose death".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OrovilleTim]

We've all heard "the devil is in the details". Well, I think "the devil is in the doubting". Doubting one's salvation leads to an infeffective witness. If your soul is secured from Satan, what's the next best thing he wants? I'd bet it is having your witness squelched to prevent you from spreading the word to others that are not yet saved.

 

[BobRyan]

How can we be deceived if we trust in the truth of God's word and the power and witness of the Holy Spirit?

John 8
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

Romans 8
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

John 15
26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

As for the Calvinist, I don't know how they have confidence in their salvation. They don't believe their own faith plays any part in salvation.

For 3 and 5 point calvinist they will gladly revoke today's "assurance" if it turns out that they fail to persever 10 years from today. The only way to faithfully hold to the Bible doctrine on perseverance AND have assurance of salvation is to be an Arminian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Dustin]

Amy G. said: "As for the Calvinist, I don't know how they have confidence in their salvation. They don't believe their own faith plays any part in salvation."

This Calvinist believes that faith is a gift from God. It is mine because I received it because God freely gave it to me. It didn't originate from me. I believe faith plays a very large part in salvation, but it's not faith that I had in me, it's granted by God.

For 3 and 5 point calvinist they will gladly revoke today's "assurance" if it turns out that they fail to persever 10 years from today. The only way to faithfully hold to the Bible doctrine on perseverance AND have assurance of salvation is to be an Arminian.

In Christ,

Bob

Not really, it depends on how you define perseverence. Is it something that man does on his own, or is it something that God grants, like faith, grace, etc. The same with assurance of salvation, it becomes a matter of does one believe what the Scriptures say or not.

Please define.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Andy T.]

Dustin, interesting chart that you posted in #19. I would fall somewhere between Low and Moderate Calvinism - probably closer to Moderate.

 

[Tom Butler]

True - God forseeing the future and all the results of His work in the gospel fully knows who will freely accept and who will freely reject using the free will He has given to both.

But these are two entirely different definitions for elect.

In the 4 and 5 point model elect is "arbitrarily select A over B".

In the Arminian "foresees" view "it is BOTH A and B drawn with the SAME all consuming love an passion for the lost, yet A uses free will to choose life and B uses free will to choose death".

Bob, you're a veteran of this board, and quite a scholar. I'm really surprised that you would fall into the trap of using the word "arbitrary" to describe God's choices--Calvinist model or any other model. You don't believe that, Calvinists don't believe it, and you know they don't believe it. You could have said, "in the 4 and 5-point model elect is "God selects A over B for some reason."

I could agree with that.

 

[Dustin]

Dustin, interesting chart that you posted in #19. I would fall somewhere between Low and Moderate Calvinism - probably closer to Moderate.

I found it very interesting also.


Here's the poll results on PuritanBoard.


View Poll Results: What kind of Calvinist Are You?

Hyper-Calvinism 3 2.56%
Ultra High Calvinism 7 5.98%
High Calvinism 69 58.97%
Moderate Calvinism 34 29.06%
Low Calvinism 2 1.71%
Lutheranism 2 1.71%
Free-will Baptist 0 0%
Arminianism 0 0%


I'm almost positive that at least 2 of the 3 "Hyper" votes were mistakes.

High Calvinism is the runaway winner with nearly 60% of the vote.

On the chart, Free-Will Baptist was changed to American Baptist (i.e. the most commonplace stance of Baptist churches in America today).

I would be between High Calvinism and Ultra High Calvinism leaning toward Ultra.

People like Phil Johnson and John Mac Arthur are better gauges on Moderate (they're names that more people would know).

Todd from Way of the Master would be Lutheran ( I think he goes to a Lutheran church, actually), as far as atonement goes, dunno about sacramentally though.

My guess would be the vast majority of Baptistboard would be Low Calvinist, as describe in the chart. that and American Baptist and Arminianism would have a stronger than zero showing.


Very interesting indeed.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you're a veteran of this board, and quite a scholar. I'm really surprised that you would fall into the trap of using the word "arbitrary" to describe God's choices--Calvinist model or any other model. You don't believe that, Calvinists don't believe it, and you know they don't believe it. You could have said, "in the 4 and 5-point model elect is "God selects A over B for some reason."

I could agree with that.

Johnathan Edwards, Spurgeon and others have stated emphatically that the difference between a saved soul and a lost one has absolutely nothing to do with the person, who they are, what they can do or what they like or what they choose. God simply selects one and not the other.

To argue that His selection is done BECAUSE of something about the person He chooses is to argue against the foundation of Calvinism. Nothing about that person causes God to select them OR determines that God will select them. God has children but no grandchildren. No such thing as "George is saved because he is the friend of Joe and Joe was selected".

It is picture perfect in terms of the arbitrary nature of the selection and indeed it MUST be to conform to what Calvinism is trying to say about the selection. The selection has nothing at all to do with some "reason" or "attribute" already possessed by the person thus selected. No family status, no natural ability or skill, no choice, no work, no relationship.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
For 3 and 5 point calvinist they will gladly revoke today's "assurance" if it turns out that they fail to persever 10 years from today. The only way to faithfully hold to the Bible doctrine on perseverance AND have assurance of salvation is to be an Arminian.

Dustin
Not really, it depends on how you define perseverence. Is it something that man does on his own, or is it something that God grants, like faith, grace, etc.

It does not matter. Failing to persevere ten years from today will get "today's assurance" -- retro-deleted in the 3 and 5 point Calvinist models.

#1. Do you accept or reject the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints? (This is easy - "yes" or "no")
#2. IF you fail to persevere ten years from today - do you then argue that today's assurance was valid? (i.e loss of salvation) or does it get retro-deleted?

Dustin
The same with assurance of salvation, it becomes a matter of does one believe what the Scriptures say or not.

Please define.

In Matt 7 the church members cast out - genuinely BELIEVED that they could assert they were saved - but they turn out to be "self-deceived".

And the funny thing about self-deception is that the one thus deceived does not know it - "by definition".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tom Butler]

Johnathan Edwards, Spurgeon and others have stated emphatically that the difference between a saved soul and a lost one has absolutely nothing to do with the person, who they are, what they can do or what they like or what they choose. God simply selects one and not the other.

That's also my position.

To argue that His selection is done BECAUSE of something about the person He chooses is to argue against the foundation of Calvinism. Nothing about that person causes God to select them OR determines that God will select them. God has children but no grandchildren. No such thing as "George is saved because he is the friend of Joe and Joe was selected".

Again, you have stated correctly.

It is picture perfect in terms of the arbitrary nature of the selection and indeed it MUST be to conform to what Calvinism is trying to say about the selection. The selection has nothing at all to do with some "reason" or "attribute" already possessed by the person thus selected. No family status, no natural ability or skill, no choice, no work, no relationship.

Actually, no believer knows why God chose to extend mercy, grace and salvation to him, and not the other guy, since neither deserves them. At best, we can say that God's electing choice is according to the secret counsel of His will. To describe it as "arbitrary" goes beyond what we're capable of knowing. It conjures of the image of God's flipping a coin.

 

[BobRyan]

On the positive side - the term "Arbitrary" forces the conclusion that there is never expected be any "inherent difference" between two lost souls (in fact by the attribute "arbitrary" there MUST never be any such distinction) such that God must choose one and not the other, or that God would be more predisposed to choose one and not the other.

Indeed - if one goes to a car dealer and without looking at any of the cars - obvserves that it happens to be 10:23 AM -- and so selects the cars in space number 10 and number 23 to purchase - it is purely "arbitrary" since the "guarantee" is that nothing about the cars themselves determines the selection. But even THAT is "too connected" for it means that the car was selected BECAUSE it was in space 10 and the hour happens to be 10 am.

In the real model absolutely NOTHING about the person determines their selection. The arbitrary example just given - is far less arbitrary than what is proposed for God's selection process.

One may indeed argue that God is doing it deliberately and with vast intelligence as His way of SHOWING that Grace is truly unmerritted -- so that the MORE the selection is SHOWN to be arbitrary the MORE the selection is found to be unmerritted!

 

[Dustin]

Johnathan Edwards, Spurgeon and others have stated emphatically that the difference between a saved soul and a lost one has absolutely nothing to do with the person, who they are, what they can do or what they like or what they choose. God simply selects one and not the other.

To argue that His selection is done BECAUSE of something about the person He chooses is to argue against the foundation of Calvinism. Nothing about that person causes God to select them OR determines that God will select them. God has children but no grandchildren. No such thing as "George is saved because he is the friend of Joe and Joe was selected".

It is picture perfect in terms of the arbitrary nature of the selection and indeed it MUST be to conform to what Calvinism is trying to say about the selection. The selection has nothing at all to do with some "reason" or "attribute" already possessed by the person thus selected. No family status, no natural ability or skill, no choice, no work, no relationship.

in Christ,

Bob

Yet it is not arbitrary at all, it's not completely random because God has a purpose in it.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[BobRyan]

As stated above - the "purpose" is to show that nothing IN or about the person determines that they will be "selected". In so doing - it is seen to be "all of God and none-of-man".

The purest form of "arbitrary selection" demonstrates the Calvinist point.

It is purely imaginary of course - but still it is easy to see how 4 and 5pt Calvinism dictates it.

 

[billwald]

No objective test for election

All these 5 pointers going to church every week thinking that they are the "elect" - Maybe God put all possible denomination names in a bucket and drew out "LDS"

 

[Tom Butler]

Johnathan Edwards, Spurgeon and others have stated emphatically that the difference between a saved soul and a lost one has absolutely nothing to do with the person, who they are, what they can do or what they like or what they choose. God simply selects one and not the other.

To argue that His selection is done BECAUSE of something about the person He chooses is to argue against the foundation of Calvinism. Nothing about that person causes God to select them OR determines that God will select them. God has children but no grandchildren. No such thing as "George is saved because he is the friend of Joe and Joe was selected".

It is picture perfect in terms of the arbitrary nature of the selection and indeed it MUST be to conform to what Calvinism is trying to say about the selection. The selection has nothing at all to do with some "reason" or "attribute" already possessed by the person thus selected. No family status, no natural ability or skill, no choice, no work, no relationship.

Bob, except for describing the Calvinist view of election by God as "arbitrary," I completely agree with you, and so do the Calvinists I know.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks.

Do you agree with the car purchase analogy as being an example of an arbitrary method for selecting a car?

 

[Tom Butler]

Thanks.

Do you agree with the car purchase analogy as being an example of an arbitrary method for selecting a car?

What I can't agree with is your view that the car-selection process is less arbitrary than God's election process.

You contend that since there is nothing in anyone that merit's election, God's selection process must be arbitrary.

That's a risky conclusion, since it requires one to know the mind of God. And it is a conclusion that no Calvinist that I know would agree with.

I can see your reasoning, I think. Non-Calvinists, who hold to foreseen faith, can claim that God's election is based on a foreseen tangible event--the electee's saving faith. The Calvinist model, on the other hand, has no such event for God to consider, thus his elective choice must be arbitrary. Have I stated your view correctly?

This view is consistent with your soteriology. The problem with it is that the soteriology is flawed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: This view is consistent with your soteriology. The problem with it is that the soteriology is flawed.

HP: May I interject a thought? Why rule out, or find fault with the arbitrary solution in relation to election? The Calvinist pleads ignorance when the tough illustrations are set forth, yet offer nothing as a possible solution other than ignorance concerning God. If the Calvinist is ignorant in such matters, such a one is in no position to say that election is not in fact arbitrary, correct?

 

[BobRyan]

The Calvinist model, on the other hand, has no such event for God to consider, thus his elective choice must be arbitrary. Have I stated your view correctly?

That is part of it - you get the point that in Cavlinism God is not looking into the future to see who will accept and then making his election/choice/selection. But MORE than that - in Calvinism God also does not look at any past event OR at any current "attribute" about the person thus selected to determine the selection.

So in my example I provide a scenario where no future aspect of the car, no past history of the car and no present attribute of the car is possible in determining it's selection.

However my model falls far short of the arbitrary selection process that God must use in a Calvinist model - for the car is new and is a model of the brands being sold by the car dealer. By going to a new car dealer and selecting from the new cars - attributes were taken into account and they should not have been. I would need to have described an even MORE arbitrary selection process to begin to come close to the model Calvinism uses.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR, your inbox needs to be cleared.