Posted on 04/19/2003 7:32:39 AM PDT by drstevej
The Theology of John Calvin
The subject of this address is the theology of John Calvin and I shall ask leave to take this subject rather broadly, that is to say, to attempt not so much to describe the personal peculiarities of John Calvin as a theologian, as to indicate in broad outlines the determining characteristics of the theology which he taught. I wish to speak, in other words, about Calvinism, that great system of religious thought which bears John Calvin's name, and which also--although of course he was not its author, but only one of its chief exponents--bears indelibly impressed upon it the marks of his formative hand and of his systematizing genius. Of all the teachers who have wrought into it their minds and hearts since its revival in that tremendous religious upheaval we call the Reformation, this system of thought owes most perhaps to John Calvin and has therefore justly borne since then his name. And of all the services which Calvin has rendered to humanity--and they are neither few nor small--the greatest was undoubtedly his gift to it afresh of this system of religious thought, quickened into new life by the forces of his genius, and it is therefore just that he should be most widely remembered by it. When we are seeking to probe to the heart of Calvinism, we are exploring also most thoroughly the heart of John Calvin. Calvinism is his greatest and most significant monument, and he who adequately understands it will best understand him.
It was about a hundred years ago that Max Gobel first set the scholars at work upon the attempt clearly to formulate the formative principle of Calvinism. A long line of distinguished thinkers have exhausted themselves in the task without attaining, we must confess, altogether consistent results. The great difficulty has been that the formative and distinctive principles of Calvinism have been confused, and men have busied themselves rather in indicating the points of difference by which Calvinism is distinguished from other theological tendencies than in seeking out the germinal principle of which it itself is the unfolding.
The particular theological tendency with which Calvinism has been contrasted in such discussions is, as was natural, the sister system of Lutheranism, with which it divided the heritage of the Reformation. Now undoubtedly somewhat different spirits do inform Calvinism and Lutheranism. And equally undoubtedly, the disunguishing spirit of Calvinism is due to its formative principle and is not to be accounted for by extraneous circumstances of origin or antecedents, such as for example, the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the superior humanistic culture of its first teachers, or their tendency to intellectualism or to radicalism. But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.
In the first place, the doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, it is only its logical implication. It is not the root from which Calvinism springs, it is one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. And so little is it the peculiarity of Calvinism, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement--which was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of religion, so from the doctrinal point of view a great revival of Augustinianism. There was, accordingly, no difference among the Reformers on this point; Luther and Melanchthon and the compromizing Butzer were no less zealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of this doctrine; and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who paused, even in his first preliminary statement of the elements of the Protestant faith, to give it formal assertion and elaboration.
Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of; instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God's activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question, "What shall I do to be saved?" and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, "Whence this faith by which I am justified?" And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, "From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.
If thus the formative principle of Calvinism is not to be identified with the points of difference which it has developed with its sister type of Protestantism, Lutheranism, much less can it be identified with those heads of doctrine--severally or in sum--which have been singled out by its own rebellious daughter, Arminianism, as its specially vunerable points. The "five points of Calvinism," we have no doubt learned to call them, and not without justice. They are, each and every one of them, essential elements in the Calvinistic system, the denial of which in any of their essential details is logically the rejection of the entirety of Calvinism; and in their sum they provide what is far from being a bad epitome of the Calvinistic system. The sovereignty of the election of God, the substitutive definiteness of the atonement of Christ, the inability of the sinful will to good, the creative energy of the saving grace of the Spirit, the safety of the redeemed soul in the keeping of its Redeemer,--are not these the distinctive teachings of Calvinism, as precious to every Calvinist's heart as they are necessary to the integrity of the system? Selected as the objects of the Arminian assault, these "five-points" have been reaffirmed, therefore, with the constancy of profound conviction by the whole Calvinistic world. It is well however to bear in mind that they owe their prominence in our minds to the Arminian debate, and however well fitted they may prove in point of fact to stand as a fair epitome of Cavinistic doctrine, they are historically at least only the Calvinistic obverse of "the five points of Arminianism." And certainly they can put in no claim, either severally or in sum, to announce the formative principle of Calvinism, whose outworking in the several departments of doctrine they rather are--though of course they may surely and directly conduct us back to that formative principle, as the only root out of which just this body of doctrine could grow. Clearly at the root of the stock which bears these branches must lie a most profound sense of God and an equally profound sense of the relation in which the creature stands to God, whether conceived merely as creature or, more specifically as sinful creature. It is the vision of God and His Majesty, in a word, which lies at the foundation of the entirety of Calvinistic thinking.
The exact formulation of the formative principle of Calvinism, as I have said, has taxed the acumen of a long line of distinguished thinkers. Many modes of stating it have been proposed. Perhaps after all, however, its simplest statement is the best. It lies then, let me repeat, in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the poignant realization which inevitably accompanies this apprehension, of the relation sustained to God by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand, with a sense of his own unworthiness to stand in God's sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner, and on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who receives sinners. He who believes in God without reserve and is determined that God shall be God to him, in all his thinking, feeling, willing--in the entire compass of his life activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual--throughout all his individual, social, religious relations--is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist.
If we wish to reduce this statement to a more formal theoretical form, we may say perhaps, that Calvinism in its fundamental idea implies three things. In it, (i) objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; (ii) subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; (iii) soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability. Theism comes to its rights only in a teleological view of the universe, which recognizes in the whole course of events the orderly working out of the plan of God, whose will is consequently conceived as the ultimate cause of all things. The religious relation attains its purity only when an attitude of absolute dependence on God is not merely assumed, as in the act, say, of prayer, but is sustained through all the activities of life, intellectual, emotional, executive. And evangelical religion reaches its full manifestation and its stable form only when the sinful soul rests in humble, self-emptying trust purely on the God of grace as the immediate and sole source of all the efficiency which enters into its salvation. From these things shine out upon us the formative principle of Calvinism. The Calvinist is the man who sees God behind all phenomena, and in all that occurs recognizes the hand of God, working out His will; who makes the attitude of the soul to God in prayer the permanent attitude in all its life activities; and who casts himself on the grace of God alone, excluding every trace of dependence on self from the whole work of his salvation.
I think it important to insist here that Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, evangelical faith, but the perfect expression of these things. The difference between it and other forms of theism, religion, evangelicalism, is a difference not of kind but of degree. There are not many kinds of theism, religion, evangelicalism, each with its own special characteristics, among which men are at liberty to choose, as may suit their individual tastes. There is but one kind of theism, religion, evangelicalism, and if there are several constructions laying claim to these names they differ from one another, not as correlative species of a more inclusive genus, but only as more or less good or bad specimens of the same thing differ from one another.
Calvinism comes forward simply as pure theism, religion, evangelicalism, as over against less pure theism, religion, evangelicalism. It does not take its position then by the side of other types of these things; it takes its place over them, as what they too ought to be. It has no difficulty thus, in recognizing the theistic character of all truly theistic thought, the religious note in all really religious manifestations, the evangelical quality of all actual evangelical faith. It refuses to be set antagonistically over against these where they really exist in any degree. It claims them in every instance of their emergence as its own, and seeks only to give them their due place in thought and life. Whoever believes in God, whoever recognizes his dependence on God, whoever hears in his heart the echo of the Soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession--by whatever name he may call himself; by whatever logical puzzles his understanding may be confused--Calvinism recognizes such as its own, and as only requiring to give full validity to those fundamental principles which underlie and give its body to all true religion to become explicitly a Calvinist.
Calvinism is born, we perceive, of the sense of God. God fills the whole horizon of the Calvinist's feeling and thought. One of the consequences which flow from this is the high supernaturalism which informs at once his religious consciousness and his doctrinal construction. Calvinism indeed would not be badly defined as the tendency which is determined to do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first so in the second creation. The strength and purity of its apprehension of the supernatural Fact (which is God) removes all embarrassment from it in the presence of the supernatural act (which is miracle). In everything which enters into the process of the recovery of sinful man to good and to God, it is impelled by the force of its first principle to assign the initiative to God. A supernatural revelation in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of the revelation in a supernaturally given Book, in which God gives His revelation permanence and extension ,--such things are to the Calvinist matters of course. And above all things, he can but insist with the utmost strenuousness on the immediate supernaturalness of the actual work of redemption; this of course, in its impetration. It is no strain to his faith to believe in a supernatural Redeemer, breaking His way to earth through a Virgin's womb, bursting the bonds of death and returning to His Father's side to share the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Nor can he doubt that this supernaturally purchased redemption is applied to the soul in an equally supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
Thus it comes about that monergistic regeneration--"irresistible grace," "effectual calling," our older theologians called it,--becomes the hinge of the Calvinistic soteriology, and lies much more deeply imbedded in the system than many a doctrine more closely connected with it in the popular mind. Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestination itself consists to the Calvinist largely in the safeguard it affords to the immediate supernaturalness of salvation. What lies at the heart of his soteriology is absolute exclusion of creaturely efficiency in the induction of the saving process, that the pure grace of God in salvation may be magnified. Only so could he express his sense of men's complete dependence as sinners on the free mercy of a saving God; or extrude the evil leaven of synergism, by which God is robbed of His glory and man is encouraged to attribute to some power, some act, some initiative of his own, his participation in that salvation which in reality has come to him from pure grace.
There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Above everything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His son Jesus Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit whom He has sent, as our veritable Saviour. To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit. This is the root of the Calvinistic soteriology, and it is because this deep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness of indebtedness for all that enters into salvation to the free grace of God is the root of its soteriology, that election becomes to Calvinism the cor cordis of the Gospel. He who knows that it is God who has chosen him, and not he who has chosen God, and that he owes every step and stage of his salvation to the working out of this choice of God, would be an ingrate indeed if he gave not the whole glory of his salvation to the inexplicable election of the Divine love.
Calvinism however, is not merely a soteriology. Deep as its interest is in salvation, it cannot escape the question--"Why should God thus intervene in the lives of sinners to rescue them from the consequences of their sin?" And it cannot miss the answer--"Because it is to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus it cannot pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation with a complete world-view in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. If all things are from God, so to Calvinism all things are also unto God, and to it God will be all in all. It is born of the reflection in the heart of man of the glory of a God who will not give His honour to another, and draws its life from constant gaze upon this great image. And let us not fail punctually to note, that "it is the only system in which the whole order of the world is thus brought into a rational unity with the doctrine of grace, and in which the glorification of God is carried out with absolute completeness." Therefore the future of Christianity--as its past has done--lies in its hands. For, it is certainly.true, as has been said by a profound thinker of our own time, that "it is only with such a universal conception of God, established in a living way, that we can face with hope of complete conquest all the spiritual dangers and terrors of our times." "It, however," as the same thinker continues, "is deep enough and large enough and divine enough, rightly understood, to confront them and do battle with them all in vindication of the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the world, and of the Justice and Love of the divine Personality."
This is the system of doctrine to the elaboration and defence of which John Calvin gave all his powers nearly four hundred years ago. And it is chiefly because he gave all his powers to commending to us this system of doctrine, that we are here today to thank God for giving to the world the man who has given to the world this precious gift.
The 'conditional' aspect of salvation ends when we accept the free gift of salvation (Rom.6:23), offered to all men (Jn.3:16).
Once we respond to God's love, then God's love becomes unconditional based on the new relationship that has been entered into.
Eternal security is knowing that if God knows everything, He already knows who will sit with Him in heaven and who won't. So in God's mind, it is set in stone.
That God knows who would freely respond to His free offer is not contested.
If we are graced by God's touch to know Christ and follow his lead, we realize Christ's sacrifice has allowed us to be counted among those with God.
And we know that Christ promised to draw all men to Him and tasted death for all men.
Thus, all man has to do is accept the gift offered to Him by a merciful and loving God.
If they do, they cannot be lost (in the Church Age), but if they do not, then the wrath of God does fall on them (Jn.3:36) because they rejected God's love.
That's security. And it's eternal
Were the Old Testament saints 'predestinated' to this eternal security?
Not according to Exodus 33:32 they weren't!
Eternal security is a New Testament doctrine based on Union with Christ, becoming the Body and Bride of Christ, not unconditional election.
As for the Union with Christ, that was something revealed to Paul (Eph.3).
This 'Union' goes beyond salvation, it shows a special relationship, that the Jews rejected and thus, was offered to the Gentiles (Rom 9-11), although individual Jews, when saved are brought into this 'new' body (Eph.1:23, 5:30, Gal.3:28).
Those Covenant made to Israel will be completed in the future when the Church is taken to heaven in the Rapture (1Thess.4:16-17 Heb.8:8, Jer.31:31), and the King of King and Lord of Lord, the Lion of Judah, comes to take the throne of David (Rev.19) and rule the world (Psa.2, Isa.9)
Did it say that he sinned in those ways. I read that he stated that he kept the commandments and the Lord did not correct him on it!
What the Lord did was reveal where his sin was, in greed.
God never leaves man to 'his own devices' but has made Himself clear to man through nature so that man may respond to God's drawing (Psa.19, Rom.1) That is certainly not true:
It's not?
Then why does the Bible say that in Romans 1 that God has revealed Himself and that is the reason they are without excuse?
11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN." -- Mk. 4:11-12 [NASB] Hiding the gospel so that people may not turn and be forgiven? Revealing it only to a select few (in this case the 12)? Leaving the rest to their own devices? Sure sounds like what's happening here. (Incidentally, this verse always confused me as a little kid, when I encountered it. Why wouldn't God want everyone to turn and be forgiven? But few little kids encounter Romans 9-11.)
First, the fact is the Jew had rejected their Messiah, that is why they were 'hardened', as all are who reject the truth.
Romans says that they knew God, now how about that!
But since they refused to worship God, turned them over to a reprobate mind (vs.24).
Thus, it was their rejection that resulted in that reprobate mind, not that they had it at the start!
Finally, Israel shut her eyes her own eyes (Matt.13:15) 'for their eyes have they closed'
God also states in Romans 10:21 that He is pleading with the Jews.
He also wept over their rejection (Matt.23), a strange thing to do if it were God that made them reject His Son.
What [the opposite] states is that man has to reject God's drawing of them via nature and finally the Cross, but not all men do, some respond (such as Cornilus) and thus are saved. So why are some being saved and some rejecting it? Are those saved more devout or more spiritually attuned, so that they are more receptive? Or perhaps they're smarter? Or less evil?
No, they are more open to the truth and obedient to it.
No, those that are saved are such without any merit of their own.
Who said there was 'merit' in faith?
The merit lies in the object of the faith, not the one having the faith, the merit lies in the one giving the gift, not the one receiving it. (Rom.4:4-5)
Or, in the words of Scripture, For who maketh thee to differ one from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? 1 Cor. 4:6 [AV] Contextually, this refers to the Corinthians, who were proud of their wealth and power, but the premise still holds.
No, it had to do with the Corinthians divisions over spiritual gifts and schisms over following particular men.
The 'wealth' that Paul is discussing is 'spiritual wealth', not economic wealth.
Thus, you are left with a abitrary God, who acts contrary to what Scripture reveals Him to be, one who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.(Ezek.33:11) Ezekiel refers to physical death as judgment.
And if one died as a judgment were they still saved (Exod.33:32)
Moreover, you still have 1Tim.2:4 and 4:10 to deal with.
REgarding eternal states, Romans already makes clear that God chooses based upon His counsel alone. I doubt it's arbitrary, but it's certainly not because of any merit on the part of the elect:
Well, here is a flash for you!
If it is not 'arbitrary' it must be based on something in the object then right?
Now all men are equally guilty before God, and God states that He is not a respector of persons, yet you state that you 'doubt that it is arbitrary!
As for Romans, it says nothing about unconditional election to salvation, it is speaking about Israel in Romans 9-11 and there are even Calvinists who acknowledge that fact. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. - Rom 9:18 So, because he is born in sin and in Total depravity he hates God, rejects God, and is condemned by God, yet, never had a chance to accept God since God did not give him the irresistable grace that those who are saved get.
And according to Calvinists man is still responsible for this?
Now, how did man find himself in this 'totally depraved' state?
Did not God put Adam into sin (for God's glory)
Your system makes God the author of the very thing He hates, sin.
Finally, what the first Adam did, the Second Adam undid (Rom.5)
Grace is greater then sin.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. - Rom 9:19-23 [NASB] It's there in black and white; you just refuse to see it.
I was wondering how long before Rom.9:20 would show up!
It took about three posts!
Now, go and find the historical context of those verses (Israel and Esau Mal.1).
Romans 9-11 is speaking about the nation of Israel, not individual salvation or damnation.
And why, pray tell, is this?
Moreover, you still have 1Tim.2:4 and 4:10 to deal with.
And we have done so ad nauseum. The Greek language is not as precise in its use of the universal as English. Pas does not necessarily mean "Each and every single one," but can also mean "all kinds, without distinction." That is the sense in I Tim. 2:4 and 4:10.
I was wondering how long before Rom.9:20 would show up!
That's because Romans 9-11 is something the Armininan simply cannot explain. To say it speaks only of national groups is just a flight of fancy. ("God's dispensational dealings with Israel" was the line I used when I fought against Calvinism. It was crap then, and its crap now.)
Tell me, how can this speak of "God's dispensational dealings with Israel?"
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.This speaks of individuals being elected, and thus, it cannot be held that Romans 9-11 speaks of "nations."
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
-- Rom 11:5-7.
Volition.
The choice to choose for truth or against it.
The same reason not everyone becomes a criminal.
Moreover, you still have 1Tim.2:4 and 4:10 to deal with. And we have done so ad nauseum. The Greek language is not as precise in its use of the universal as English. Pas does not necessarily mean "Each and every single one," but can also mean "all kinds, without distinction." That is the sense in I Tim. 2:4 and 4:10.
Well, according to Spurgeon, the Calvinist brethren who attempt to make 1Tim.2:4 speak of all 'sorts of men' are going against scripture,
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God.
Moreover, in 1Tim.4:10 you not only have the fact that Christ is the saviour of all men, but espically those who believe, pointing out that the 'all' here does not refer to all 'kind's of men, but everyman.
Now, since 'all' means everyone most of the time, it is up to you show from the context that the 'all' here is referring to all 'kinds' and not everyone, not just because your theology demands it.
How do we know Rom.3:23 is not referring to all 'sorts of men' and not every man?
I was wondering how long before Rom.9:20 would show up! That's because Romans 9-11 is something the Armininan simply cannot explain. To say it speaks only of national groups is just a flight of fancy. ("God's dispensational dealings with Israel" was the line I used when I fought against Calvinism. It was crap then, and its crap now.) Tell me, how can this speak of "God's dispensational dealings with Israel?" 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; -- Rom 11:5-7. This speaks of individuals being elected, and thus, it cannot be held that Romans 9-11 speaks of "nations."
First, Romans 9 begins with Paul referring to 'his brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh'(Rom.9:3)
Second, Romans 11 begins with 'hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamim.
Doesn't sound like he is speaking of individual salvation here.
As for vs.7, those Jews who believed in this dispensation were made part of the Church (Gal.3:28), but the rest were hardened (again a national reference)
The passage that you cite in Romans. 9:13 'Jacob have I loved, but Exau have I hated' is a quotation from Malachi 1:2
I have loved you saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Saith the Lord, yet I loved Jacob. And I have hated Esau and laid his mountains and his heritage to waste for the dragon of his wilderness (Mal.1:2-3)
Thus, that 'hatred' of Esau is referring to a national hatred based on its attitude to Israel (Psa.137:7), not individual salvation of either Jacob or Esau.
I note that you did not answer the question of God being 'arbitrary'.
So if all men are the same, on what basis did God choose some and reject the rest, creating them for the sole purpose of sending them to a Lake of Fire?
The Calvinist wants to pretend that he is so humble, that he preaches 'grace'.
What he really believes is that there must have been something that made him worthy of being saved, after all, they will exclaim, God chose me!
If not on the basis of something in that person, then it is simply that God picks a name out of a giant cosmic hat and being God is allowed to do so, 'might makes right', the same view that Islam has of God.
I think we have gone full circle, dealing with the usual Calvinistic 'proof-text's.
Actually 'unconditional election' is only an issue because the Calvinists make it one.
The real issues in Christianity are the Gospel of Christ,(Rom.1:16) and being a doer of the word and not only a hearer (James. 1:22)
As Wesley preached at the sermon of Whitfield, non-essentials should not separate the brethen who are laboring for the Lord.
Bump for a latter read and perhaps future participation...
Well, there have been some tense moments....
We wear special throat protection gear.
Every man has the God given right to choose FTD. Every man will do what he will. Teir eternal problem is what they will choose without the grace of God
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Calvin did not know Paul as James did. It is better to be guided by James than by Calvin.
There are actions a person must take to cooperate with God in salvation and remaining within that salvation. Those are not burdensome actions: baptism, repentance, obedience. Nor are they part of the old Jewish law which is what Paul meant when he referred to those who desired to be declared righteous by their works.
We do good works as a result of Christ's regeneration, not as a token for its barter.
One of the inherent problems with Catholicism/Arminianism is the ignoring of the eternal security provided by Christ's sacrifice.
Christ's sacrifice was complete on the cross; he died for His flock and paid the full price for your redemption.
But the Catholic/Arminian believes that Christ's work was not complete; that you are perpetually in jeopardy of losing God's grace. Thus the intervention of extraneous, self-serving church hierarchy is "necessary" to help you keep upright.
Calvin merely pointed out that if one is saved in God's plan, that salvation cannot be lost.
We live our lives according to His will; not ours.
Yes, and all men receive the grace of God, which reveals Himself, first through nature then through the Gospel.
In Romans 1:21 we read that the heathen knew God, but rejected Him.
In Romans. 2:18, Paul says that the unsaved Jew knows God will and 'approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed in the law' yet resists God (Acts. 7:51)
We see examples of unsaved people seeking God in the person of Cornilus (Acts 10-11).
God seeks the unsaved first via natural theology and conscience and if that person is receptive, then the Gospel.
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Hyperbolic statements made to make a point that the Jew was no better then the Jew.
That same passage also states that there is 'no fear of God before their eyes' yet we saw the Pharoah afraid of God in Gen.20 and the sailors afraid God's wrath in Jonah.
What you want to make those passages say is that even though God seeks man through nature (Psa.19, Rom.1) revealing Himself so that man will begin to seek Him, that man cannot respond to God's grace unless already unconditionally elected.
Hence, the need for Calvinism to stress regeneration preceding (at least logically) faith.
Every false faith has its 'proof-texts', the issue is, are they consistent with the rest of scripture. Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Did the 'good' Samaritan do good?
Now, that 'good' will not get him saved, but it nevertheless is still a 'good' that God commands.
Out of context'proof-texts' are much easier to handle then the entire realm of scripture.
Maybe you can answer this for me. I posted it on another thread but no one replied.
In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul states "What I do is discipline my own body and master it, for fear that after having preached to others I myself should be rejected." It seems that Paul is saying he is uncertain of his own salvation or recognizes that he can lose it. How do you reconcile this statement with your beliefs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.