Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[Scott McCumber]

Brent and Kimberly,

Rather than go into a long verse by verse discussion, especially since I don't know how to bring Brent's last post over here either, I am going to give a very general reply.

It seems to me that the core issue in this discussion is the idea that God must do something in/for an individual before they can believe.

Reformed theology says that the elect are regenerated prior to salvation.  This is seen as necessary because of their view of man's fallen nature, (Total Depravity).  Reformed folks believe that man cannot believe, so God must, through the operation of irresistable grace, so work in the man that he must believe.  He will do this because God has so decreed.


Arminians believe that because of man's fallen nature he cannot believe. They say that since Christ died for the sins of all men, common grace makes it possible for all men to believe.  Some will, some wont.  God has known for all eternity who will and who wont, so He elected those who will.

Now the purpose of my post is not to argue for one against the other.  I don't believe either one is completly correct myself.  Those who get their underwear in a bundle about this usually make the mistake of thinking that these are the only options.

I wanted to make a few points that can be considered in this discussion.

1. Both views require prevenient grace.  Prevenient just means "comes before" so whether it is irresistable or not all grace operating on men before salvation must be prevenient.

2. The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace, through faith.  Faith is an decision of the mind and will to respond positively to Divine revelation.  In this case the gospel.

Remember, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".  You must have something to believe before you can have faith in it.  This dictates an order.  How can someone believe before there is anything to believe.

A widly accepted rule of interpretation is that truth established by clear passages is to used in understanding unclear passages.  BTW GG rejected this.

3. We must be careful about drawing conclusions that do not follow from a particular verse.

 For example the verse that says, "No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
(John 6:44).

This verse says that no one can come unless they are drawn.  It does not say that all who are drawn come.

It may be true that all come.  But it is a violation of the rules of logical inference to draw that out of this verse.  One who wishes to establish that idea must find a verse or passage that does lead one to that conclusion.  

No one can ride in my car unless I invite him.  But not all who are invited ride in my car.

What reformed theologians do with verses like this to impose their systematic theology on them.  The verse must mean what we have concluded is true, ie, TULIP.  However, that is doing theology backwards.  It is an exponential form of the "Begging the Question" fallacy.

4. Kimberly, unless people are sinless, they need a savior.  No one, as far as I know, believes that only Christians can live a good outward life.  There are plenty of very nice people who live outwardly moral lives, at least generally.

But if we offend in one point of the law, we are guilty of all the law.  We need Christ, and apart from his cross there is no salvation.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

You make some really good points here Tom.  

I agree, faith comes through hearing.  It is extremely difficult to make that one say something else.

So, do I undertand you correctly in that you are saying there is prevenient Grace, which enables faith?  Therefore, although confession and a receiving of Christ's gift of salvation is required, it isn't a work?  Do I have this right?

Brent

Brent,

Any grace that operates in/on a person before their salvation is by definition prevenient, ie, it comes before.  The "ven" root of the word is from the Latin for "to come".  Pre is obvious to English speakers.

When Reformed folks think of grace that "comes before" they don't say "prevenient grace".  That is because what that term means for Arminians is different than Calvinists believe.  But in their view the regenerative work of God that precedes new birth is by God's irresistable grace.  But it obviously "comes before" faith unto salvation.  So it is prevenient in that sense at least.

When Weslyan Arminians speak of prevenient grace they mean common grace, which they believe operates on all men, enabling, not forcing them to believe.  Reformed folks also believe in common grace, but to a more limited extent.

I believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins of an elect group.  Because of this, it seems likely to me that grace is available to all men.  To enable faith unto salvation, it would have to be prevenient.

This also seems, to me at least, to accord best with Biblical injunctions to go into the world to preach the gospel to all nations.

Perhaps I am wrong in this.  In the past Christians have gone so far as to kill each other over this issue.  In our day, I am well aware that many would despise me for my opinions.

I am just not sure why I should care very much about folks that think that way.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

Prevenient grace working on the hearts of ALL men throughout the course of their lives? Or a conviction of the Holy Spirit at certain key moments (such as hearing the gospel)?

S

[BenJapheth]

Question - Was the good Samaritan saved?  

::c:v::

Hi Chuck,

Good to see your digitally reproduced words again!  Happy Freedom day to you!

RE: your question above,  now we're talking!

My answer, I don't know......however, he did do the will of God, in contrast to the Pharisee, who only talked about the will of God.  So, if I had to be pinned down, I would say yes, he was saved.

How do you see this in regard to the thread?

Brent

Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[/b]

Need one ask "now what?" Makes me wonder if one understands salvation.  

Some thoughts follow on this Gift and "Now what?"

It is not necessary to understand salvation to be saved. Once I understood this it opened up a whole new vista for me. When I got saved I could no less tell you what happened than a three year old could explain how he came out of his mama.  All I could say was "Jesus saved me, He loves me, and He loves you, too. Jesus Christ is so wonderfully incredible." (hadn't memorized the Way, the Truth, and the Life, yet.)  Hey, that's a pretty good gospel isn't it? How's that for the four spiritual laws and quoting John, Ephesians, Romans, etc.  But, this "now what?" stuff...

Whereas a person who is saved may "not understand salvation"...I would say they usually understand "Now what!"

Quick digression - I think a lot of people "get saved" without going through the right "steps"...probably most.  I would submit for the readers' consideration that few people have testimonies that are neat and tidy.  It is rare that someone REALLY gets saved at a Billy Graham Crusade or via a Campus Crusade's Four Spiritual Laws or via a James Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion program, et. al.   I'm amazed at people that had gone through those means, or via verse methods/diagrams and/or special events, and if you talk to them years later after they got saved, even when I had personally administered the saving tool, that they rarely would cite the method or the special event or the unique means that saved them.  Indeed, we were physically knit in our mother's womb in secret, and in our salvation, too the Lord seems to constantly defy our elementary notions of His mysterious workings.  We western men like our solutions in a bottle. It's the way we like our answers straight-up, no unanticipated twists, no stray hairs...Well, salvation defies the reductionism.  It is like the wind, nobody knows where it is coming from or where it is going. It is not tidy...but, really saved people usually know "now what."

The Good Samaritan - No really truly good deed can be done except by God's grace. None.  It is God's grace that allows us to suffer the pangs of compassion in such a way for others that we act "in faith" on behalf of our neighbor.  Love compells us to see others through the lense of our own weaknesses and needs and yearning for redemption, we relieve ourselves of these mercy pains by doing good to others - really this is Him doing good through us.  I believe this is the "light that comes into the world and enlightens every man" how we respond to that light is how we will be judged - the Light of Christ.  The Good Samaritan knew what to do in his moment of "Now". ..."Now what" was never an issue.

Jesus speaks of the man in the temple who was beating his chest and crying out to God for forgiveness.  There is no evidence that he knew that Jesus Christ heard him, but He does hear the man who has "the gift" to see his sin and have godly sorrow for it.  Jesus says he left justified and yet there is no evidence that he went through the four spiritual laws or could relate the gospel of grace to another sinner.  Even though this guy probably didn't understand the Gift of Salvation - You know what? He knew what.

The Centurian is another example - He trusted in Jesus, but he had no idea of the cross, the resurrection or "about receiving Christ"...He knew Jesus was the Christ and therefore had the authority to heal His servant.  "Say the word and it is enough." He trusted.  Salvation is a free gift...Now what?  He knew what.

The children who Jesus exhorted his disciples to "be converted unto" had no concept of salvation theology, yet they were the benchmark that Jesus set for being intimate with Him.  They didn't know that they knew...But, they knew what. They wanted to be close to Him.  If we were to go there, this gets into the rewards.  Jesus is the Reward and closeness to Him is the prize.  That's what the children wanted and like Mary at Jesus' feet listening, who might have been a good for nothing, she had what was important..She knew what - Jesus was what.  He's the great What. He was the What for salvation, He was the What after salvation. Before Moses was He was What. The first and the Everlasting What...The Great What.  

I would submit that we are surrounded by hundreds and even millions of people who are saved and don't call themselves Christians.  Many and perhaps most of these "hidden saved" people are following Jesus in the context of the LIGHT they have had, however, the light that they have too often had from Christianity has overwhelmingly and far too often not really been a Light at all.  

As an aside let me confess something, I find it is easier to find "non-Chrisitans" that I like than I do Christians that I like.  You know, I'm changing in my views a bit - I'm not ready to write all these unbelievers off as "unsaved." I'm not at all saying they're saved, but I'm not ready to say they are lost just cause I can't see what is going on inside...Wow, maybe I'm not a fundementalist anymore.  

To be frank, there are more examples of Jesus in movies like Peter Jackson's adaption of Tolkein's Lord of the Rings and Russell Crow in the early historical 19th century fiction sailor warrior movie "The Master and the Commander" than in most churches I know...The Good Samaritan was definitely a Chrisitian even though he never knew Jesus' name.  He knew Jesus' name Compassion, His name Love...God is One.  He knew that One.

If it weren't for Jesus I wouldn't want to be a Chrisitian. In fact, for those who can accept it, I would say I'm not a Christian - I refuse the 20th/21st century baggage that comes with that term.  

Brent, my point in how it relates to this thread is salvation is a free gift - But, how do you get the gift?  Answer: with another gift - the box inside the box - faith. The gift of the gift in all the examples above is faith.

The "now what?" question to me belies that one has not understood something basic about salvation -.  The one "saved" leper didn't have to ask "now what?" he knew what to do...As did the Samaritan, the Centurian, the man in the temple as do all who are REALLY saved.  By the way, the leper KNEW the CROSS when he forgot self and pursued the worship of the Author of his new life...even though he knew not "the wooden cross."

It is not necessary to understand salvation to be saved - but it is a huge benefit in worshipping Christ in the only way that matters  - in our actions. Knowing what now.  

Jesus had really few problems with the ignorant.  His bone to pick was primarily among a certain kind of ignorance. It seems it is ignorant, rude, and simple people of this planet that are most fit to be enlightened to "knowing what" about Him.  In fact, our intelligence is often what blinds us to knowing what...cause we're trying to figure it out and God is not apprehended that way.  This is why the simple are most blessed...and, perhaps why the West has lost its way in our age. Most people that "Know what" know not of much else.

Chuck, believer in Jesus Christ, the non-Christian.

::c:v::

[Kimberley Tobin]

I would submit that we are surrounded by hundreds and even millions of people who are saved and don't call themselves Christians.  Many and perhaps most of these "hidden saved" people are following Jesus in the context of the LIGHT they have had, however, the light that they have too often had from Christianity has overwhelmingly and far too often not really been a Light at all.  

As an aside let me confess something, I find it is easier to find "non-Chrisitans" that I like than I do Christians that I like.  You know, I'm changing in my views a bit - I'm not ready to write all these unbelievers off as "unsaved." I'm not at all saying they're saved, but I'm not ready to say they are lost just cause I can't see what is going on inside...Wow, maybe I'm not a fundementalist anymore.  

To be frank, there are more examples of Jesus in movies like Peter Jackson's adaption of Tolkein's Lord of the Rings and Russell Crow in the early historical 19th century fiction sailor warrior movie "The Master and the Commander" than in most churches I know...The Good Samaritan was definitely a Chrisitian even though he never knew Jesus' name.  He knew Jesus' name Compassion, His name Love...God is One.  He knew that One.

If it weren't for Jesus I wouldn't want to be a Chrisitian. In fact, for those who can accept it, I would say I'm not a Christian - I refuse the 20th/21st century baggage that comes with that term.  

Brent, my point in how it relates to this thread is salvation is a free gift - But, how do you get the gift?  Answer: with another gift - the box inside the box - faith. The gift of the gift in all the examples above is faith.

The "now what?" question to me belies that one has not understood something basic about salvation -.  The one "saved" leper didn't have to ask "now what?" he knew what to do...As did the Samaritan, the Centurian, the man in the temple as do all who are REALLY saved.  By the way, the leper KNEW the CROSS when he forgot self and pursued the worship of the Author of his new life...even though he knew not "the wooden cross."

It is not necessary to understand salvation to be saved - but it is a huge benefit in worshipping Christ in the only way that matters  - in our actions. Knowing what now.  

Jesus had really few problems with the ignorant.  His bone to pick was primarily among a certain kind of ignorance. It seems it is ignorant, rude, and simple people of this planet that are most fit to be enlightened to "knowing what" about Him.  In fact, our intelligence is often what blinds us to knowing what...cause we're trying to figure it out and God is not apprehended that way.  This is why the simple are most blessed...and, perhaps why the West has lost its way in our age. Most people that "Know what" know not of much else.

Chuck, believer in Jesus Christ, the non-Christian.

::c:v::

Chuck........you convey with your words, I think, what I was trying to communicate re: my family, particulary my mom and sister.  They know "what".  They don't put it in a box.  My step-father and I were just talking about this over lunch yesterday.  Us (western especially) Christians want to put God in a box.  You know, "What" do I have to "do".  It really is an ageless question..........the man who asked Christ, "What must I do to be saved?"  There's the "what" again?

We were agreeing that Christ always thought and operated "out of the box."  And that is what I think you have aptly described, Chuck........thinking and acting "outside of the box."  Isn't that what got us all into trouble being apart of the assembly?  We wanted everything neat and tidy, to be able to check off on our list that we were in a right relationship with God today, because I've done the "what", that which is "required" of me.  And all that is required is that I believe.  And I, like Chuck, believe there are many who "believe" and yet aren't in "the box."  And quite frankly, I hope they never get "in the box."

[M2]

I was discussing this with Brent via EMs and thought that I would continue it on the BB.

Brent:
I submit that confession, repentance, and calling upon The Lord is fruit, or evidence of salvation, and not what brings it about.

Marcia:
I am still curious as to what it is you believe brings about salvation.

Brent:
Salvation is brought about by God.  His blood is applied to everyone He saves.  We do not command His appearance with a sinner's prayer, neither do we render Him impotent with an unbelieving heart.  I honestly believe that He chooses who will be saved, and that He saves them.

In some marvelous way, His choosing in no way infringes on our "free" will. Paul the Apostle is a good picture of this.  Paul says he was called from the womb to preach the gospel, yet he began as a persecutor and enemy. God saved Saul, without his co-operation!  That's the way I see it. I'm a 3.7 point Calvinist.

Brent:
He chooses who will be saved, and that He saves them.

Marcia:
Other evangelicals, ie besides assemblyites, disagree with you on this. I can't say I agree either. What if I was not one of the ones appointed for salvation?? This opens up a whole unpleasant can of worms. e.g. existing assemblyites cannot help themselves in their deception because they have been appointed for the 'deceiving spirit' etc...

Brent:
The "what if" question is actually quite easily dealt with.  First of all, you are saved, so it is a moot point! Usually, the question is more like, "What if my friend isn't appointed?"

That's a valid question. Let's look at it from three angles.

1.) No one is appointed, salvation is dependent on our choice.  This means that our salvation is up to us.  Frankly, that really scares me.  Do I really believe?  Have I really repented?  What about the doubts I feel from time to time, where I wonder if God is really real?  I don't like this idea at all.  My salvation is dependent on a very unstable and unreliable person, me.

2.) Salvation of your friend is up to you.  If you aren't faithful to share the gospel, be a good example, and show forth Christ's love, your friend could perish.  Again, salvation is on very shaky ground.

3.) Salvation is up to God.  Everyone he chooses to save, gets saved.  Not one of them are lost.  If you struggle, He is strong.  If you aren't as faithful in preaching as you should be, He can still save, because He is God.  In this case, your friends salvation rests on the surest possible foundation,  the Love of God.

The next question, that follows the first one is,  "Isn't God unjust for saving some and not others?" Actually, God would be just to save no one.  It isn't His justice that saved us, but His Mercy.  It is a wonder that He saved anyone!  I am totally comforted by this.

On the one hand, God will not lose a single person He wants to save,  on the otherhand, everyone who calls upon His name will be saved.  Our salvation is a sure promise.

[H]

The whole discussion is about, "How does one become one of the elect"?  How does one become one of those who are "given to the son"?

The only way I know of to "become one of the elect" is for God to choose you before the foundation of the world. (Eph 1:4 - "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" 2Ti 1:9 - "Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began")  

[Mark C.]

[quote author=:: Chuck Vanasse :: link=board=6;threadid=601;start=0#msg14956 date=1074



It is not necessary to understand salvation to be saved.
Whereas a person who is saved may "not understand salvation"...I would say they usually understand "Now what!"

...Well, salvation defies the reductionism.  It is like the wind, nobody knows where it is coming from or where it is going. It is not tidy...but, really saved people usually know "now what."

The Good Samaritan - No really truly good deed can be done except by God's grace. None.  It is God's grace that allows us to suffer the pangs of compassion in such a way for others that we act "in faith" on behalf of our neighbor.  Love compells us to see others through the lense of our own weaknesses and needs and yearning for redemption, we relieve ourselves of these mercy pains by doing good to others - really this is Him doing good through us.  I believe this is the "light that comes into the world and enlightens every man" how we respond to that light is how we will be judged - the Light of Christ.  The Good Samaritan knew what to do in his moment of "Now". ..."Now what" was never an issue.
The children who Jesus exhorted his disciples to "be converted unto" had no concept of salvation theology, yet they were the benchmark that Jesus set for being intimate with Him.  They didn't know that they knew...But, they knew what. They wanted to be close to Him.  If we were to go there, this gets into the rewards.  Jesus is the Reward and closeness to Him is the prize.  That's what the children wanted and like Mary at Jesus' feet listening, who might have been a good for nothing, she had what was important..She knew what - Jesus was what.  He's the great What. He was the What for salvation, He was the What after salvation. Before Moses was He was What. The first and the Everlasting What...The Great What.  

I would submit that we are surrounded by hundreds and even millions of people who are saved and don't call themselves Christians.
As an aside let me confess something, I find it is easier to find "non-Chrisitans" that I like than I do Christians that I like.  You know, I'm changing in my views a bit - I'm not ready to write all these unbelievers off as "unsaved." I'm not at all saying they're saved, but I'm not ready to say they are lost just cause I can't see what is going on inside...Wow, maybe I'm not a fundementalist anymore.  

If it weren't for Jesus I wouldn't want to be a Chrisitian. In fact, for those who can accept it, I would say I'm not a Christian - I refuse the 20th/21st century baggage that comes with that term.  

The "now what?" question to me belies that one has not understood something basic about salvation -.  The one "saved" leper didn't have to ask "now what?" he knew what to do...As did the Samaritan, the Centurian, the man in the temple as do all who are REALLY saved.  By the way, the leper KNEW the CROSS when he forgot self and pursued the worship of the Author of his new life...even though he knew not "the wooden cross."

It is not necessary to understand salvation to be saved - but it is a huge benefit in worshipping Christ in the only way that matters  - in our actions. Knowing what now.  

Jesus had really few problems with the ignorant.  His bone to pick was primarily among a certain kind of ignorance. It seems it is ignorant, rude, and simple people of this planet that are most fit to be enlightened to "knowing what" about Him.  In fact, our intelligence is often what blinds us to knowing what...cause we're trying to figure it out and God is not apprehended that way.  This is why the simple are most blessed...and, perhaps why the West has lost its way in our age. Most people that "Know what" know not of much else.

Chuck, believer in Jesus Christ, the non-Christian.

::c:v::

   Thanks Brent for starting this very interesting topic and I have appreciated the many different comments made here, though I only quote Chuck above.
    Thanks Chuck for your very thougtful and provocative post and I wish that we could sit down and have a long discussion about what you wrote.  
    "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.  But the man who loves God is known by God," I Cor. 8:2-3.
    The above passage was addressed to Christians who thought they knew "now what" and were ready to enforce their "higher knowledge" on their brethren!  Paul suggested if they really knew anything it would be displayed in loving behavior toward those they considered weak, or possibly even inferior (does that kind of sound like a place we've been before?).  In I Cor. 13 Paul says that knowing all mysteries and even great acts of faith (the centurion?) without love is zilch!
    It seems clear that of all of God's attributes love best describes Him,and that this love which surpasses all knowledge,  is how God relates to us humans.  The Cross of Jesus not only did a work for us it is a place where God reveals to us who He truly is--- The lover of man's eternal soul!
   I start all my theological pondering from the paragraph above.  I do not ignore individual verses when reading them but hold then up along side what the cross tells me about who God is. (Gl.3:1)
  Long before the NT period God loved man and had a way to work in hearts, as you Chuck so well described  in your listing of the different ones Jesus met in the Gospels.
   This applies to the question of the thread as one's view of who God really is will describe what salvation really is.  I understand Chuck how it is that you feel more like a Universal reconciliationist than one that would hold to Limited atonement, but I think both are our human minds trying to grasp what we can't understand.  
   The wind does indeed blow where it wants, and so God can not be placed in a box of our making.  But less we fall into the error of our mystic friends we do need to study the Bible and understand what it teaches.  The modern day fundamentalist error, imho, is holding the doctrine without considering God's love in Christ, as in the I Cor. 8 verses I shared.
    Much more to say, but I have to get up early.
                                              God bless,  Mark C.
   

[/quote]

[Oscar]

[Tom,

Prevenient grace working on the hearts of ALL men throughout the course of their lives? Or a conviction of the Holy Spirit at certain key moments (such as hearing the gospel)?

Scott,

That is a good question.  I have really never thought about that before, nor have I ever seen anything about it in writing.  


I will definitely question some professors about this next semester.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Scott McCumber]

Tom,

Another question, as you seem to have a good handle on the origin of most of the doctrine that has been discussed here:

When was the last time there was a valid, original thought concerning Christian doctrine?

S

[Oscar]

The whole discussion is about, "How does one become one of the elect"?  How does one become one of those who are "given to the son"?

The only way I know of to "become one of the elect" is for God to choose you before the foundation of the world. (Eph 1:4 - "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" 2Ti 1:9 - "Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began")  

H,

Of course.  That is what all Christians believe.  The question that causes so much heat among Christians is something like, "On what basis does God elect?"

Here is a better way to illustrate what I am talking about:

Westminster Confession of Faith-Chapter 3, Section 2.

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

You and Verne are the Calvinist "big guns" here.  So I am asking you guys, "How do they arrive at this conclusion?"

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Tom,

Another question, as you seem to have a good handle on the origin of most of the doctrine that has been discussed here:

When was the last time there was a valid, original thought concerning Christian doctrine?

S

Scott,

Probably today.  Having been around some theologians, I have heard them talk about Dispensationalism and Reformed Theology moving toward each other in many ways.  

I does, however, take many years for ideas to become widespread.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

[Scott McCumber]

The whole discussion is about, "How does one become one of the elect"?  How does one become one of those who are "given to the son"?

The only way I know of to "become one of the elect" is for God to choose you before the foundation of the world. (Eph 1:4 - "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" 2Ti 1:9 - "Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began")  

H,

Of course.  That is what all Christians believe.  The question that causes so much heat among Christians is something like, "On what basis does God elect?"

Here is a better way to illustrate what I am talking about:

Westminster Confession of Faith-Chapter 3, Section 2.

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

You and Verne are the Calvinist "big guns" here.  So I am asking you guys, "How do they arrive at this conclusion?"

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

You're having discussions with four or five people here that all have studied similar questions, etc. but your audience is probably several dozens or more people who don't have that background.

I submit that you should not always satisfy your own thirst for intellectual stimulation and instead break it down for the rest of us! Verne and H don't need to have their Calvinism debunked as badly as everyone else here needs to be taught sound doctrine without the taint of Geftakysism.

Teacher teach!

Please?

So is the above confession from Westminster (Calvinist institution?) saying that God does not decree anything just because he knows it will turn out that way?

And you're asking, "How do they know that?"

Am I following this so far?

S

[Oscar]

The whole discussion is about, "How does one become one of the elect"?  How does one become one of those who are "given to the son"?

The only way I know of to "become one of the elect" is for God to choose you before the foundation of the world. (Eph 1:4 - "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" 2Ti 1:9 - "Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began")  

H,

Of course.  That is what all Christians believe.  The question that causes so much heat among Christians is something like, "On what basis does God elect?"

Here is a better way to illustrate what I am talking about:

Westminster Confession of Faith-Chapter 3, Section 2.

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

You and Verne are the Calvinist "big guns" here.  So I am asking you guys, "How do they arrive at this conclusion?"

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

You're having discussions with four or five people here that all have studied similar questions, etc. but your audience is probably several dozens or more people who don't have that background.

I submit that you should not always satisfy your own thirst for intellectual stimulation and instead break it down for the rest of us! Verne and Helgi don't need to have their Calvinism debunked as badly as everyone else here needs to be taught sound doctrine without the taint of Geftakysism.

Teacher teach!

Please?

So is the above confession from Westminster (Calvinist institution?) saying that God does not decree anything just because he knows it will turn out that way?

And you're asking, "How do they know that?"

Am I following this so far?

S

Scott,

The Westminster Confession is a Calvinist document written in England in 1643-46.  Most Calvinist churches use it as a doctrinal standard for all teaching.  When I say Calvinist churches I mean the ones that haven't gone liberal.

The document states clearly that in electing people God does not consider future acts or events.

I am asking them, "How do they know this?"

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

     Some, perhaps many, of the readers here are aware that I spent twenty-some years away from any regular Christian fellowship.  During that time I prayed, was prayed for, requested prayer, and thought about God a lot.  I went for years at a time without seriously reading the Bible, but there was no escaping the remembering of all those passages with which I was so familiar, or the many spiritual hymns and songs I had learned.
     But I considered also many alternative theologies; many other ways of looking at God that seemed, from a human standpoint, much more fair and reasonable that the gospel I had learned.
     I was never entirely free of the Gospel, and it disturbed me greatly.  I felt I had nothing to lose by being honest with God (whover He might be) as I was in no position to change anything about Him.  So I told Him what I thought at any given time.  Sometimes I argued theology with Him (imagine!!) and sometimes I railed against Him for perceived injustices.  Sometimes I was truly grateful and thanked Him, and often I interceded for others (although I was frequently unclear as to what ends).

     From all that, I learned a couple of things:
     God is not at all troubled by our honesty before Him, no matter how unscripturally we behave.  By that I mean that regardless of how bizarrely we may act, it affects nothing at His level.  He doesn't change.  His compassions do not fail.  Jesus Christ the Same, yesterday, today, forever.
     Because His nature is changeless, so is His plan.  Both His master plan, the "big picture," and every little specific detail have been decided upon, approved, and will be implemented, each part at its appointed time.
     It is a good thing to accept, adjust to and learn to appreciate these things.

     God is Love.  You and I read that, hear it, say it, and have yet to comprehend it.  We relate God to ourselves, to our experiences, and we interpret, "God does love."  And indeed He does.  But we can't conceptualize an entire divine nature that is Love.  
     God is the Father and God is the Son, and the LOVE of that relationship exceeds by universes our ability to grasp.  There has never been, can never be such a love as characterizes God the Father and Son.  And yet, the love of God for us is so deep, profound, strong, that the Father sent the Son to lay down His life for our sakes, and for love of the Father, the Son did so.

     How am I going to consider the magnitude of God's love for me then question His plan?  Can I blithely dismiss the dimension of my redemption because He hasn't reduced His blueprint to language I can fully comprehend?  Will I challenge the "fairness" of the One who bore all the wretchedness of my rebellion against Him because I'm not sure about someone else's salvation (no matter who that someone may be)?

     No, the only response to such love, such magnanimity, is to fall upon one's face in gratitude and utter surrender, to adore and to trust wholeheartedly.  His nature within us will bring about His desired ends in each of our lives as we see that "but one thing is needful," and, out of hearts full of responding love, we choose "that good part."

al Hartman

[M2]

If salvation is a gift----I'm sure most of us agree with that----then what must one do to be saved?

Are we saved when we accept the gift?  You have probably heard this type of approach,  "God so loved you that He gave His Only Son to die in your place!  All you need to do is:

1.)admit you are a sinner
2.)believe that Jesus Christ paid for your sins on the cross
3.)ask Jesus to come into your heart
4.)purpose to live a life that honors God."

Granted, perhaps 1-3 are more popular than all four.  

Here are my questions:

In the model above, salvation requires three or four things from us.  Can this be called a "free gift," when we cannot get it unless we do 1-3?

Or, is salvation NOT a free gift?

Or, is the model outlined above not really the way a person gets saved at all, despite its current popularity?

Or, are there other ways of looking at it that I haven't mentioned at all?

Brent

ACT 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."
ACT 2:21 'And it shall be, that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'
1JO 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
John 3:16   etc.

I do not agree with the 'limited atonement' teaching. Another question arises as to why then did God not appoint all to be saved. In fact 1 Tim 2:4 says God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

God's grace is also to be balanced with His love and His sovereignity and His justice etc. IMO God's love would not exclude certain ones. He has decided that He will give the gift to those who choose to accept it. It is still a gift, but a gift not rejected. A gift does not become mine if I refuse to accept it.

Going back to Brent's original post on this thread, I would agree that the ABC or the 1-3 method does make God's gift of salvation into a work. The model ought to be a guideline, but there are some people out there who may actually be under the false impression that they are saved just because they went through the steps and prayed the sinner's prayer.

Marcia

[editor]

I do not agree with the 'limited atonement' teaching. Another question arises as to why then did God not appoint all to be saved. In fact 1 Tim 2:4 says God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Going back to Brent's original post on this thread, I would agree that the ABC or the 1-3 method does make God's gift of salvation into a work. The model ought to be a guideline, but there are some people out there who may actually be under the false impression that they are saved just because they went through the steps and prayed the sinner's prayer.

Marcia

I also have trouble with limited atonement.  While I can't deny that Christ's atonement IS indeed limited if only in the sense that there will be people in Hell,  I have difficulty with the idea that He only died for the Elect, and that He appointed some for eternal wrath.

Please understand,  there are some really good arguments around what I say above,  which are rather convincing.  Nevertheless, I still can't give myself to the doctrine with a clear conscience.

As far as limited atonement, I have decided to approach from the standpoint that I know I am saved, and that Christ knows who belongs to Him.  No one I love and care about has rejected Him,  and I know that He can save the most hardened person.  

He chose us, and we chose Him.  Somehow, this neither limits His soverienty, or His atonement, while at the same time each and every one of us is responsible before God.  

Salvation is not about Judgement, it's about Mercy.   Believing in one's heart that Christ's atonement is limited does not bring about salvation!   However, in my heart I know I'm saved, even if I am unsure about the scope of His atonement.

I also know that He chose me, and marked me out for salvation, which is a comfort.  And yes, I responded to His grace.

I don't see this as contradictory at all, even if it is hard to grasp.  There is Romans 9  AND Romans 10, afterall.

Brent