Maybe I'm Not Naive
Well, now that I've made the Calvinists mad (well, not really...but work with me), let me get the Arminianists stirred up. While I have differing views with the Calvinists concerning "predestination, foreknowledge, etc.," I can say that I appreciate their view on security of the believer (well, at least most of them). While many come to that conclusion through different routes, there is no way that a person who is saved can lose that salvation. It is an impossibility. No where in Scripture do we see an example of someone who is a believer losing their salvation. In fact, according to the words of Christ Himself, He cannot lose them, for only a strong man could take them, and no one is stronger than God. I mean, after all, if eternal life is not "eternal," then what is it?
Posts
Come, brethren, ye who love the Lord
9 hours ago
18 comments:
*Roaring Crowd*
Hahaha...
thanks for bringing balance back to the force!!!!
In the words of Yoda:
"Force balancer I am!"
Hey, dude, watch what you say about Armenia. Rumor is, the New Soviets want it back. You know with it's thriving economy and all...
Ah, security, Arminianism's big problem. Glad you brought it up. Now I don't have to spend another 3000 words explaining why my view on predestination isn't Calvinism and my view of security isn't Arminianism.
And, Stephanie, I thought you handled your thoughts and comments pretty well in the other thread. I didn't detect any pride issues in your comments, but maybe you just felt like it was headed that direction. I think all opinions have been pretty well covered by now, anyway...
And, just so you all know, the only REALLY big issue that Matt, Stubby, and I disagree on is Matt's insistence that in the Millennial reign the Easter Bunny will continue being the SOLE bearer of Cadbury Cream Eggs. Stubb says God will create hollow chocolate roosters for that job. I say roosters don't lay eggs, fish do.
Oh, and I'm dropping out of the Pre-, Mid-, Post-Tribulational rapture debate, guys. I'm moving to California with Hank and becoming a Preterist.
C-ya!
Philip,
So you've become a "pretty terrorist"...uh, I mean preterist, huh? Okay, I know you're joking because you don't even like California!
It's not that I don't like them (Californians and Preterists), it's just that I don't understand how they think (sorry, Hank)!
But Queen Hillary has inspired me to reach out to those I disagree with. "Let's talk. Let's chat."
Indeed. Let's do.
Oops, Sorry. I'm being political again...
Care to tackle preterism in a blog? We might learn something. I'll go try and read up on it again. The paaaaiiinnn!!
Yes, I've lost my mind. Should you find it, handle carefully. "A mind is a terrible thing to taste." Oh, uh, "waste." Maybe both.
This may hold the key to why so many Baptists are recovering their Reformed roots.
Acceptance of Eternal Security is but a step from Perseverance of the Saints and as we have always said, the man who is truly and finally honest with himself and with the Word of God, when he becomes convinced of one, must eventually become convinced of all the doctrines of Grace.
Probably sounds a bit arrogant put that way, but it's not really a boast unless it be a boast in the enduring power of the Word to change men's hearts and minds from the false comfort of soft error to the true and lasting rest which can only be found in the full truth of God's Sovereign and Covenant Love.
Ah Anoetos,
We seem to be so close on so much of this. The main difference is in the area of free will. Well, I can't post more now, but "I'll be back!"
We don't deny free will, we simply understand it to be limited by the nature of the choosing agent.
The Bible says that the unregenerate are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 2:13) that their minds are darkened and hearts corrupt (Gen. 6:5; Eccl. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Mk 7:21-23; Eph 4:17-19) that they are hostile to God and cannot please Him (Rom. 8:7-8) they are unable to understand Him (1 Cor. 2:14)that they are enslaved by sin (2 Tim. 2:25-26; 1 Jn 3:10; Jn 8:34; Rom. 6:20) that this nis true of everyone (Ps. 130:3; Ps. 143:2; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:9-12; 1 Jn 1: 8-10) etc. etc. etc.
The Bible is very strong in describing the condition of the unregenerate, they are spiritually dead and at enmity with God, it is not a matter of them being unable to choose Him so much as that they simply don't want Him, they hate Him. We speak of total inability but it is an inability conditioned by nature.
So, we do not deny free will, but we do understand that will to be conditioned and limited by our nature. The wicked are the way they are because that is they way they want to be, they won;t choose otherwise because their problem is deeper than mere choice; their hearts are rotten, their choosers are broken.
The Bible is very clear about the nature of the unregenerate man. He will not and therefore he cannot choose to believe the Gospel without God first changing his heart.
This is what Jeremiah means when he says:
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. - Jer. 31:33-34
Likewise when Paul says:
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.[b] The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. - 2 Cor. 5:16
It is all God's work and none of ours. We have nothing in which to boast.
So, what kind of free will do you mean? And what would such a free will look like? And wouldn't such a will make you the agent of your own salvation?
I mean really, if God just sets up the situation where you can be saved if you make the right choice then who really ends up being responsible for your salvation? And wouldn't your salvation in that case be a work that you are doing? You exercise faith, you grasp the free offer of grace, you decide to follow Jesus.
The Bible teaches me that in Christ God has done it all from first to last; He has taken away my sin and clothed me in His own righteousness, not because of any good in me but solely by Grace and for His Glory.
May He be forever praised!
Anoetos,
I definitely appreciate your willingness to share your opinions about this matter. I also appreciate your willingness to quote Scripture. I will study these verses and respond, but it will be a little while before I can do that (I've got to help watch my kids!). Anyway, anyone else is welcome to jump in and answer or comment on anoetos' comments!
Y'all are going to hate me for this, but I found an interesting article that I thought you might want to respond to. So, here it is:
"Freewill Belief: Is It a Saving Work?
Many Calvinists are quite fond of equating belief with works in regard to the matter of salvation. In my conversations with Calvinists they have often tried to assert that salvation by freewill is the same as salvation by works. I cannot necessarily presume that this is a doctrine universally upheld by all Calvinists, but the basic concept is as follows.
Calvinists define a work as anything man does on his own, particularly for the purpose of obtaining salvation. "Freewill" implies that God is not involved in the choices we make and, therefore, according to a Calvinist definition of works, free human choice is a work. Since we know that we are not saved by works, we know also that our free choice must not play a part in our salvation.
The Calvinist premises in this argument fall into two sets. Let's see if we can outline them.
Set A - The Definition of a "Work."
1. A "Work" is anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God.
2. A ("Freewill") choice to believe originates with man, not God.
Conclusion A: A ("Freewill") choice to believe is a work.
Set B - Salvation by Works.
1. Men aren't saved by works.
2. The ("Freewill") choice to believe is a work.
Conclusion B: Men cannot be saved by their own choice to believe.
Set A-1 is a purposefully broad definition, and from a Calvinist perspective it has to be. If there is anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation that originates from man and does not fall into the category of "works" then this entire Calvinist argument falls apart. Or in other words, if the ("Freewill") choice to believe is not a work, then we have no reason to reject that man could be saved by such a choice.
And there is also a hidden premise to this Calvinist argument. The hidden premise also involves the definition of a "work" as it applies to Set B-1. Set B-1 states that "men aren't saved by works." The question is, does this apply to all "works" or did Paul have a particular set or kind of works in mind?
We can easily dismantle this Calvinist argument. We will start by assuming that the Calvinist definition found in Set A-1 is correct. We will assume that a "work" is accurately defined as "anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God."
By assuming this definition is accurate, we will now demonstrate that there are at least two categories of works in the New Testament. Thus, the Calvinists are in error by assuming that all "works" are included in the New Testament category of "things which cannot save."
We cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Calvinist argument on this issue requires that the definition found in Set A-1 is correct and, therefore, "the choice to believe" is appropriately categorized as a work. If there is any "work" which originates from man that can bring him salvation, then the Calvinists argument crumbles.
So, let's look at some scripture and ask, is there any work a man can do to obtain eternal salvation?
John 6:27 Labour [2038] not for the meat [1035] which perisheth, but for that meat [1035] which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work [2038] the works [2041] of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work [2041] of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Let's do some vocabulary. First, the word "Labor" in verse 27 is the same Greek word as "work" in verse 28.
2038 ergazomai {er-gad'-zom-ahee}
middle voice from 2041; TDNT - 2:635,251; v AV - work 22, wrought 7, do 3, minister about 1, forbear working + 3361 1, labour for 1, labour 1, commit 1, trade by 1, trade 1; 39
1) to work, labour, do work
2) to trade, to make gains by trading, "do business"
3) to do, work out
3a) exercise, perform, commit
3b) to cause to exist, produce
4) to work for, earn by working, to acquire
Second, the words "labor" (verse 27) and "work" (verse 28, 29) are directly related to the noun "work(s)" in verse 28 and 29. One is simply a noun and the other a verb.
2041 ergon {er'-gon}
from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work); TDNT - 2:635,251; n n AV - work 152, deed 22, doing 1, labour 1; 176
1) business, employment, that which any one is occupied
1a) that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking
2) any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind
3) an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opp. to that which is less than work
The word "meat" in verse 27 is defined as follows.
1035 brosis {bro'-sis}
from the base of 977; TDNT - 1:642,111; n f AV - meat 6, rust 2, morsel of meat 1, eating 1, food 1; 11
1) act of eating
1a) in a wider sense, corrosion
2) that which is eaten, food, ailment
2a) of the soul's food, either which refreshes the soul, or nourishes and supports it
Here in John 6, Jesus tells the crowds that he will give them everlasting life but that they must labor (or work) to obtain it. In fact, we know Jesus is talking about the "works" men do because he starts off in verse 27 saying, "Labor for," and labor is the same Greek word as "work" in this passage. So, Jesus is instructing his listeners to work that they might received eternal salvation from him.
In response to this, Jesus is asked a very simple question "what works are the works of God that we might do them?" Or in other words, Jesus has just advised the crowd to work not for material things, but to work for eternal life. He is then asked, what works should we do? And he answers this question directly in verse 29, telling his listeners specifically what work they must do to obtain eternal salvation from him.
And according to Jesus, what work should men do that they might have "everlasting life?" In verse 28, Jesus clearly states that the work men should do to obtain everlasting life is the work of belief. This does two things to the Calvinist argument.
1. It tells us that everlasting life is obtained by a "work."
2. It tells us that the "work," which saves is the work of belief.
Remember that the Calvinist's argument does not work unless we define a work as "anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God." If we assume their definition is correct then we are left with the following.
Number 1 destroys the Calvinist's hidden premise that all "works" are of the same category, the category of "those which cannot save." According to Jesus, belief is a work that does bring eternal salvation. Number 2 destroys the Calvinist's Conclusion B that men cannot be saved by their choice to believe.
What this passage from John 6 really shows us is that the Calvinists have erred by assuming that all "works" are of the same category. In reality, belief is considered its own special category of a "work." And this is made even more clear as we examine the New Testament origination of the doctrine that we are saved "not by works."
This essential orthodox doctrine is found in the epistles of Paul.
Romans 4: 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. " 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Galatians 3: 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because youbelieve what you heard?
NIV - Ephesians 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
KJV - Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
We should also note that in the New Testament, the words "faith" and "belief" are really the same word in two different forms, noun and verb.
Romans 4: 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth [4100] on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith [4102] is counted for righteousness.
4102 pistis {pis'-tis}
from 3982; TDNT - 6:174,849; n f AV - faith 239, assurance 1, believe + 1537 1, belief 1, them that believe 1, fidelity 1; 244
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
1b) relating to Christ
1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
1c) the religious beliefs of Christians
1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
2a) the character of one who can be relied on
4100 pisteuo {pist-yoo'-o}
from 4102; TDNT - 6:174,849; v AV - believe 239, commit unto 4, commit to (one's) trust 1, be committed unto 1, be put in trust with 1, be commit to one's trust 1, believer 1; 248
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
1a) of the thing believed
1a1) to credit, have confidence
1b) in a moral or religious reference
1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith
2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity
2a) to be intrusted with a thing
As is made clearly evident from Galatians 3:5, the "works" which cannot save are the "works of the law." From the words of Jesus Christ in John 6, we know that belief is a "work." And from the words of both Jesus and Paul, we know that it is by belief that we are made righteous and obtain salvation. Therefore, the when Paul writes that we are saved "not by works" he has in mind only the specific works prescribed by the Law. Paul is not including the "work" of belief in this category of "unsaving" works.
And notice that when writing in Romans, Paul equates justification by works as a wage and salvation by belief as a gift. Paul is using faith/belief as the opposite of works. Therefore, Calvinists cannot equate "salvation by free human choice" with "salvation by works." For, scripture clearly distinguishes the "work" of belief from the unsaving works of the law. It is the "work" of belief that saves, while the works of the law do not.
And notice in Romans 4:3-5 that God credits Abraham for his faith. You wouldn't credit Abraham for something he had no choice about or for something you made him do. Such things wouldn't be to his credit at all. If Abraham's faith weren't of his own choosing, then it would not be a credit for him in any way.
Notice also that the comment in Ephesians parallels the account in Romans 4. In Romans 4 the gift is righteousness, not faith. Faith is trusting for the gift. But even if faith were the "gift" that still would not prove man has no choice in the matter. For the idea of a "gift" does not negate the freewill of a person to accept or reject it. What gift has any of us received in our lives that we could not choose to accept or reject? Even the natural abilities we have received are ours to develop and share or neglect and lose.
If for Calvinists, the free human choice to believe is a work AND works are defined by their origination from man (not God), then Calvinism is proven wrong by John 6. For, in John 6, Jesus clearly tells us that it is by a work, the work of belief that men obtain eternal salvation. And in that passage, Jesus tells us to do this work, attesting not only to man's responsibility to believe but also his ability to believe.
In reality, the "works" which DO NOT save are the works of the Old Covenant Law. That is not to say we are saved by works of any kind, except for the "work" of belief. And on this point, we would not disagree with the Calvinist definition of a work described at the start of this argument. Belief is a "work done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God." Man himself freely chooses to believe and rely on Jesus Christ of his own accord. This is the work required by God."
Great Article Matt,
There are a number of problems with it but its substance is pretty good.
I will withdraw the conclusion that faith is, in the Arminian scheme, a good work done to merit salvation and point out to you that it was a peripheral point, and not the heart of my argument.
There is still a difference between how the Arminian and the Calvinist understand where faith comes from.
It remains then that faith, though a work, is a work we do like any good work, only after having been born again.
Prior to being regenerated by the Grace of God, we cannot have the kind of faith we need in order to be saved. We cannot please God and this is because we will not, because we are at enmity with Him.
This then is the point I would like you to consider, leaving aside any representation of faith as a meritorious work.
"...and before I knew it, I was born again!"
I know that's a dramatic over-simplification of the Calvinist viewpoint (and I don't intend to be disrespectful), but I have to break things down to grasp them.
Anoetos makes very well spoken arguments and I have really enjoyed reading them (he makes me stop clowning around long enough to digest his content).
The issue, for me, keeps coming back to this point - when regeneration occurs, is the "new man" a recreation of the "old man," or is the "new man" created along side the "old man?" How you view this, I think, makes a world of difference.
Matt, Anoetos, Anonymous (cool handle, BTW), Stubb, Steph, any ideas? If you don't see where I'm going with this I'll explain later.
Then again, I may not have a clue what I'm thinking. It's happened before!!
Anoetos,
To tell you the truth...you make my brain hurt! Hahaha...
Well, once again you're going to make me think, so give me some time to "come back" with a well-developed argument! I know in essence what I believe, but I want to try and give you some meat (and to make sure I'm right as well!).
Oh, and by the way, I hope you have a great Memorial Day.
The issue, for me, keeps coming back to this point - when regeneration occurs, is the "new man" a recreation of the "old man," or is the "new man" created along side the "old man?" How you view this, I think, makes a world of difference.
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Gal 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves;
Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
2Co 5:4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
We are new creatures who live in an old house. We are not spiritual schizophrenics. Our war is with the flesh, (the body of sin—see Romans 7) not with an antithetical self that stands opposed to the new man vying for supremacy.
Knox,
I think I agree with you, but could you do me a favor? Continue to explain your position. I want to make sure I fully understand your position before I comment further.
"We are new creatures who live in an old house. We are not spiritual schizophrenics. Our war is with the flesh, (the body of sin—see Romans 7) not with an antithetical self that stands opposed to the new man vying for supremacy."
I agree.
The "old man" vs. "new man," I believe, describes the battle between an old set of desires and a new one.
According to Calvinist teaching, as I understand it, the mind cannnot desire righteous things until the spirit is regenerate. So, an unregenerate spirit limits the mind (will) to only desire sinful (selfish) things.
Does this, then, go the other way? Does a regenerate spirit then limit the mind only to desire righteousness?
I don't think anyone here would suggest that to be so. I have friends who believe in "sinless perfectionism," but I'm not convinced of their sinlessness or perfection!
Also, it is absurd to believe that the spirit of God and the spirit of Satan would be roomies within us.
So, I think it's safe to conclude that we agree that the battle for the will of man is is an abstract struggle within ourselves that is influenced by inward (spiritual) and outside (natural) forces. If that definition isn't complete, guys, lemme know how to fix it. I don't want to say "we agree" if we don't.
This, however, brings up an issue in my mind. How much influence and control of the will should be ascribed to the spirit? Since we are not sinless and perfect (the old desires still have influence), and we do not always follow the direction of our new spirit, does that mean the new spirit has not been fully regenerated or is somehow inferior in influence to our former, sinful spirit?
No! We are obviously left with a choice. This puts the matter of choice squarely into the realm of the conscious (not conscience). Does God not have the power to affect a change in our minds before belief takes hold? Of course He does! That's why we're all sitting here typing our little fingers numb. He influenced our thought, worldview, or reasoning in some way or another in order to draw us to Him. Big ups, me 'omeboy! (That's how my friend John says "Thank you very much, dear Friend!")
Why, then, is it neccessary to change the spirit before the mind? If "total depravity" means that no good work can come of man, I'll agree to that, provided the "good work" refers to righteousness. We know that evil men do "good works" in this world, but we also know that we cannot bring righteousness onto ourselves, it is imputed upon us by Christ at the point of regeneration.
When God opened my intellect to this fact, I recieved it in positive response. This took no "effort" on my part by any credible definition. Unlike God, I do not have the power within my words to speak anything, including my salvation, into existence (sorry, "prosperity gospel" folks). I only had to believe. He then recreated my spirit into His image.
So, why does the war within me still rage? Because, He left my abilty to choose intact. He didn't violate in BEFORE salvation, and although I've been spiritually changed, He doesn't violate it AFTER the fact. Sure, He already knew the outcome of that choice, along with all of the others, but He restrained His will (desire for ALL men to be saved) in order to allow us that decision.
That is why we are guilty of our sin in the first place. I know it's been stated countless times, but here we go again - we are guilty of our sin because we refuse the payment of it.
If God allows us that choice to refuse, then, by default, have the choice to recieve.
Post a Comment