Brother Vinny and the Life of a Calvinist

[themuzicman]

BV made the statement that while Calvinists believe that there are an elect and a non-elect, that he is compelled to live as though everyone could be elect.

This led me to comment that he really wasn't living what he believed, even though he thought this was the proper choice because the Calvinist doesn't know who is elect and who is not.

So, he asked how I would expect the Calvinist to live in light of his situation.

My answer, honestly, is "I don't know." This particular doctrine (along with several others) seem to give some problem for the Calvinist in its application.

We might use, as an example, the idea that infant baptism guarentees the the children of the elect will be elect themselves, and, in fact, that infant bapitism is important in this respect, living as though the list of the elect is now somehow dependent upon whether their child is baptized or not. That would seem to be inconsistent with the Calvinst idea of election.

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

BV made the statement that while Calvinists believe that there are an elect and a non-elect, that he is compelled to live as though everyone could be elect.

This led me to comment that he really wasn't living what he believed, even though he thought this was the proper choice because the Calvinist doesn't know who is elect and who is not.
I didn't follow your dialogue with BV, but I too treat each person as if they are possibly elect of God. Because maybe they are. You see Michael, the problem for you is that Calvinists did not invent the doctrine of election. It isn't a doctrine that got cooked up because Calvinists wanted to fill in the blank somewhere.

The Bible is repleat with the words, elect, chosen, election, calling, predestinated, etc. God has an elect people. If we say that people "elect" themselves, then it isn't God's elect people. Yet, God has not shown us the names written in His Book of Life Rev. 13:8, so we must assume that anybody we come across is a part of God's elect. Either already confessing Christ or yet may do so. What's the problem?



So, he asked how I would expect the Calvinist to live in light of his situation.

My answer, honestly, is "I don't know." This particular doctrine (along with several others) seem to give some problem for the Calvinist in its application.
So you "don't know" but the Calvinist have a problem? You lost me.

We might use, as an example, the idea that infant baptism guarentees the the children of the elect will be elect themselves That would be more of a RCC notion, not Calvinistic. In Calvinism (at least Reformed Theology), Baptism is the covenant sign and seal, placed upon one in order to mark them out as a person within the covenant. But just as with circumcision, baptism doesn't save anybody.

, and, in fact, that infant bapitism is important in this respect, living as though the list of the elect is now somehow dependent upon whether their child is baptized or not. I'm not following you Michael.


That would seem to be inconsistent with the Calvinst idea of election.

Michael
I have gotten the feeling, in the past, that you don't like discussing these things with me, and that may be in part because I don't make the same logical jumps you make in thought. I don't make sense out of your OP. I'm not saying that, as to say, that you are not making sense, I just don't follow it. I might be thick, or you may not be stating your OP clearly enough. Or a combination of both.

I'm always interested in discussion pertaining to election, so that's why I posted.

[themuzicman]

Let's stick with infant baptism for a moment... You said:

That would be more of a RCC notion, not Calvinistic. In Calvinism (at least Reformed Theology), Baptism is the covenant sign and seal, placed upon one in order to mark them out as a person within the covenant. But just as with circumcision, baptism doesn't save anybody.

If we follow this through, the sign and seal of circumcision were we required for a child to be part of the covenant. God almost killed Moses for failing to circumsize his son. Thus, action was required to become one of the elect.

If this concept is adopted for infant baptism in Calvinism, then there appears to be a condition (baptism) upon whether this child is within the new covenant, and presumably would inherit eternal life, should they die before they are able to make their own decision.

True? Not true?

Michael

[Calvinist4Him]

We might use, as an example, the idea that infant baptism guarentees the the children of the elect will be elect themselves, and, in fact, that infant bapitism is important in this respect, living as though the list of the elect is now somehow dependent upon whether their child is baptized or not. That would seem to be inconsistent with the Calvinst idea of election.

It would seem, all you have pointed out is one of the reasons why I am not a Lutheran. :teeth: (please note, I do not mean that as a shot at Lutherans, I love Lutherans.)

[Trout]

MM:
My answer, honestly, is "I don't know." This particular doctrine (along with several others) seem to give some problem for the Calvinist in its application.

I was privvy to the conversation in PalTalk and you didn't come across as "I don't know". You came across as if you knew for certain that BV was in error.

[themuzicman]

The "I don't know" referred to BV's question of "How would a Calvinist live according to his theology?"

Michael

[Alien]

I have a related question: If in fact Calvinists knew for certain who was and who wasn't elected, then how and why would they treat each group differently?

Would they treat the non-elect badly and the elect well regardless of how they actually behaved? Would they treat the non-elect better because they felt sorry for them?

I'm just trying to establish the basis for asking the original question at all.

(I'm not a Calvinist, but I can ask myself a parallel question: if I knew for certain that person A would never come to God, and that professing Christian B definitely had, would that make any difference to how I treated them? I'll have to think about that.)

[GoBahnsen]

If we follow this through, the sign and seal of circumcision were we required for a child to be part of the covenant. God almost killed Moses for failing to circumsize his son. Thus, action was required to become one of the elect.
No, no, no...nothing is required to become one of the elect. The very word elect inherently contains the idea of God's choice, not mam's or his actions. Before the twins were born...we are told. That God purpose according to ELECTION might stand.



If this concept is adopted for infant baptism in Calvinism, then there appears to be a condition (baptism) upon whether this child is within the new covenant, and presumably would inherit eternal life, should they die before they are able to make their own decision.

True? Not true?
Not true. The moment they are conceived they are viewed as a covenant child. Parents don't break their necks getting their baby to the waters of baptism, but they do get them there out of obedience to God's command.

But, I will say this, I've yet to get really comfortable with the Reformed position on baptism. i accept it, but I wouldn't want to teach a class on it tonight. Give me a week or two, to prepare.

[Calvinist4Him]

The "I don't know" referred to BV's question of "How would a Calvinist live according to his theology?"

The same way any God honoring Christian would live...as Biblically as possible.

All aspects of Theology are not necessarily something to be "lived". I know this sounds absurd and the answer should obvious, but how can you or I live the virgin birth of Christ? I suppose the point is that not all theology is practical, but that's ok, because God has not called us to be pragmatists.

[themuzicman]

But you don't live your life as though the virgin birth weren't true.

Michael

[Trout]

The "I don't know" referred to BV's question of "How would a Calvinist live according to his theology?"

Michael

I thought you were addressing BV's idea that he treats all people as if they are elect. That is the question he kept asking you.

[GoBahnsen]

The virgin birth is doctrine. God's truth. Another necessary building block in who Jesus was and is. We study it, it's implications regarding the sinful nature of man. I doubt that the depths of it's significance had been plumbed by any human. We are amazed by it. We boast in it. We say "oh what a Savior!" We bow before God in worship at His mighty wonders.

[Spokoina]

No, no, no...nothing is required to become one of the elect. The very word elect inherently contains the idea of God's choice, not mam's or his actions. Before the twins were born...we are told. That God purpose according to ELECTION might stand.


Not true. The moment they are conceived they are viewed as a covenant child. Parents don't break their necks getting their baby to the waters of baptism, but they do get them there out of obedience to God's command.

But, I will say this, I've yet to get really comfortable with the Reformed position on baptism. i accept it, but I wouldn't want to teach a class on it tonight. Give me a week or two, to prepare.

CALVIN: Institutes, Book 4, chpt 16 A

For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office...

Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. ...

For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour’s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him? ....

His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only but to his seed: not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. ...


On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. ...

CALVIN Institutes, Part 4 chpt 16 B

They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed, viz., spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God....

In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the fact, that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit. This answer at once overthrows all the objections which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism; for instance, the title by which Paul distinguishes it when he terms it the “washing of regeneration and renewing” (Tit_3:5). Hence they argue, that it is not to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings. But we, on the other hand, may object, that neither ought circumcision, which is designated regeneration, to be conferred on any but the regenerate. In this way, we shall condemn a divine institution. ....

The charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it, we thus dispose of. If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient. Should they reach an age when they can be instructed in the meaning of baptism, they will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives. ....

If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water. In like manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1Co_12:13), we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body. ...

Or, to state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations. This undoubtedly is the reason why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are begotten and born to him (Eze_16:20; Eze_23:37). For he undoubtedly gives the place of sons to the children of those to whose seed he has promised that he will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the Gentiles, so long as they were plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenants (Eph_2:11). The whole matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant, whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism....

For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food....

zHMMMMMMMMMM

[themuzicman]

I thought you were addressing BV's idea that he treats all people as if they are elect. That is the question he kept asking you.

Just before I left, he said he'd like my perspective on how Calvinists should live.

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

I have a related question: If in fact Calvinists knew for certain who was and who wasn't elected, then how and why would they treat each group differently? Nice idea about speculation, but since it is pure fantasy, I'm not into novels much.



Would they treat the non-elect badly and the elect well regardless of how they actually behaved? Would they treat the non-elect better because they felt sorry for them?
A whole host of speculations. We are told to do good unto all men, especially those of the household of faith. Yet, even there, we sometimes end up doing good to those who become apostates.



I'm just trying to establish the basis for asking the original question at all.

(I'm not a Calvinist, but I can ask myself a parallel question: if I knew for certain that person A would never come to God, and that professing Christian B definitely had,
Ahhhh...ahhh ahhhhhhh er ahhhhhh. What do you mean "definitley had." You mean, I take it, that they give evidence through a changed life, etc etc., but it get's tricky. We are often amazed at the phonies. Like the guy who is being tried as a serial killer right now. The Church members were shocked.

[GoBahnsen]

CALVIN: Institutes, Book 4, chpt 16 A

For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office...

Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. ...

For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour’s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him? ....

His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only but to his seed: not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. ...


On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. ...

CALVIN Institutes, Part 4 chpt 16 B

They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed, viz., spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God....

In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the fact, that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit. This answer at once overthrows all the objections which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism; for instance, the title by which Paul distinguishes it when he terms it the “washing of regeneration and renewing” (Tit_3:5). Hence they argue, that it is not to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings. But we, on the other hand, may object, that neither ought circumcision, which is designated regeneration, to be conferred on any but the regenerate. In this way, we shall condemn a divine institution. ....

The charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it, we thus dispose of. If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient. Should they reach an age when they can be instructed in the meaning of baptism, they will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives. ....

If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water. In like manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1Co_12:13), we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body. ...

Or, to state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations. This undoubtedly is the reason why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are begotten and born to him (Eze_16:20; Eze_23:37). For he undoubtedly gives the place of sons to the children of those to whose seed he has promised that he will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the Gentiles, so long as they were plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenants (Eph_2:11). The whole matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant, whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism....

For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food....

zHMMMMMMMMMMGo ahead, expound on Calvin. What's he saying?

[themuzicman]

Well, let's contrast, then. The OVT lives as though anyone could be elect, and actually believes that anyone could be elect. The Calvinist lives as though anyone could be elect, but believes that there are those who cannot be the elect.

Which is more consistent?

Michael

[Calvinist4Him]

The virgin birth is doctrine. God's truth. Another necessary building block in who Jesus was and is. We study it, it's implications regarding the sinful nature of man. I doubt that the depths of it's significance had been plumbed by any human. We are amazed by it. We boast in it. We say "oh what a Savior!" We bow before God in worship at His mighty wonders.

Thanks for the input. :smile: I overlooked that way of living doctrine. :blush: So, practically speaking, our response to doctrine such as the virgin birth of Christ, should be one of wonder and awe which leads to praise and worship. Rejoicing in the mysteries of God as it were. The mysteries which are foolishness to the natural man...to the carnal mind.

[Calvinist4Him]

But you don't live your life as though the virgin birth weren't true.

Do I live my life as though the virgin birth were true or not true? Although I believe it to be true, I am not sure I live either way. I mean, how are we to apply the virgin birth to our life. Let's see, my momma wasn't a virgin when she became pregnant with me... :hehe:

At any rate, me thinks you should give BV some breathing room. If he is as new to Calvinism as me thinks, he probably needs some time for things to "settle in". I know I did! I purposely avoided theology discussion for awhile.

[themuzicman]

He brought it up.

[GoBahnsen]

Well, let's contrast, then. The OVT lives as though anyone could be elect, and actually believes that anyone could be elect. The Calvinist lives as though anyone could be elect, but believes that there are those who cannot be the elect.

Which is more consistent?

MichaelThe OVT does not believe in historical Biblical election, so there is no way to compare a Calvinist with an OVT, the way you are doing it here.

It seems to me that, especially in the Open View, election is reduced to mean that...if a person decides they want to believe in Christ, then they are electing themselves to a nameless, faceless group that God has elected to save. People fall in and out of this group and even God doesn't know who will be there in the end.

Thus the term elect, as it is historically understood in Church confessions, is changed to mean nothing more than God deciding before-hand to at least do some things. Like God "elected/decided" to save people who want Jesus. As long as people freely decide to believe in Jesus, they are "elect" until they maybe undecide. Is this Open View?


And yes, since the Calvinist is aware that Jesus will send the goats on His left hand to the lake of fire, the Calvinist knows that some people cannot be elect. Yet, only God knows who they are. We can't say Osama is non elect. What if God were wanting to display His power in changing hard hearts and decided to give Osama Bin Laden the mother of all dreams. Osama wakes up begging for a Christian Bible, believes the Gospel, turns Himself in and becomes the biggest evangelist to Jihad Muslims, from behind prison bars. Spearheading mass conversions to Christ, to the point that many are calling for a stay of execution. The possibilities before God are endless. He can and will do all His good pleasure Psalm 115:3

[Solly]

Where are we told in the bible to treat anyone as elect or nonElect, except in so far as they give evidence of falling away from the truth, or at least being in severe error about it, cf Jude, Gal, and 1 Cor for instance. i don't believe anything in my Calvinist beliefs requires me to decide whether they are elect or not. There is the 'household of faith' and there are the rest, and we endeavour to live in peace with all. Jesus is our example; he reserved his ire for those who knew the truth yet didn't apply it. The rest he treated the same, and there is someone who definitely believed in sheep and goats.

The answer to these kind of questions is that we have definitive instructions in scripture to do what we do, preaching, praying, evangelising, good works, etc, because God uses means in his purposes, he uses people.

[GoBahnsen]

Where are we told in the bible to treat anyone as elect or nonElect, except in so far as they give evidence of falling away from the truth, or at least being in severe error about it, cf Jude, Gal, and 1 Cor for instance. i don't believe anything in my Calvinist beliefs requires me to decide whether they are elect or not. There is the 'household of faith' and there are the rest, and we endeavour to live in peace with all. Jesus is our example; he reserved his ire for those who knew the truth yet didn't apply it. The rest he treated the same, and there is someone who definitely believed in sheep and goats.

The answer to these kind of questions is that we have definitive instructions in scripture to do what we do, preaching, praying, evangelising, good works, etc, because God uses means in his purposes, he uses people.Good points Solly. So obvious too.

[themuzicman]

The answer to these kind of questions is that we have definitive instructions in scripture to do what we do, preaching, praying, evangelising, good works, etc, because God uses means in his purposes, he uses people.

But doesn't that just reinforce the point that your theology points one way, but the practical application points another way?

Michael

[Solly]

No, it just tells us that in a world of sin where all can seem contrary to our dim eyes, God will accomplish his purposes, down to those regarding the individual person, and that we can go forth in that confidence, our labours are not in vain even if we don't see the fruit. All you have are possibilities and may be's. It's a pastoral thing; we preach a Christ who died for a specific people, and that you need have no shame or fear in coming before him, indeed every confidence, because that desire to come to him is of him, it can indeed be a sign that he has called you, and has already redeemed you, - interestingly I have only just been reading about how that was an aspect of 2TJ writings, such as the Hadayot. We preach an accomplished salvation that people take hold of, not a posibility of a salvation that still awaits your response.

[GoBahnsen]

But doesn't that just reinforce the point that your theology points one way, but the practical application points another way?

MichaelAre you trying to bring out geebob's argument? How can God command me to love those He does not love? To which, the answer is, because He is God and I'm not. He is the Creator and He operates in ways that I can't and am not expected to. He can hate Esau, but i'm supposed to do Esau good. And so did God for that matter. Esau seemed to enjoy many good things in His carnal life.

So, I'm not sure I follow you Michael. Our Theology informs us that not all will be saved. Yet we are told to do good unto all. And even that will mostly be done internally. Most of my good works would be within my own Church. Most, but not all. Do good unto all "especially those of the household of faith." Stephen was serving the saints in the Church, he wasn't waiting tables at a secular establishment.

[Solly]

But then you need to define what love and hate mean in this context anyway. To see them as equivelent to human emotions with those names is wrong. To see them as mutually exclusive is also wrong. After all, God sent his son into the world that was already condemned. That is the beauty of God's love, that he 'loves' those he 'hates', he justifies the ungodly, not the righteous. Some might get the idea that God's 'love' for the elect is something apart from their sinfulness and estrangement from God, but you need to be very high calvinist for that. God hated Egypt, but the Israelites also needed the passover blood to avoid death. Why's that?

[GoBahnsen]

But then you need to define what love and hate mean in this context anyway. To see them as equivelent to human emotions with those names is wrong. To see them as mutually exclusive is also wrong. After all, God sent his son into the world that was already condemned. That is the beauty of God's love, that he 'loves' those he 'hates', he justifies the ungodly, not the righteous. Some might get the idea that God's 'love' for the elect is something apart from their sinfulness and estrangement from God, but you need to be very high calvinist for that. God hated Egypt, but the Israelites also needed the passover blood to avoid death. Why's that?Of course. I think you raise some needed concerns. I'm still not altogether clear on God's love in general and His love for His own, etc. What I am clear on is avoiding a big mushy kind of love that is undecerning.

God loving everyone the same, until they die, then that love gets changed to pure wrath in many cases. Or is God pouring out His wrath in judgment on His loved ones? Or former loved ones? I think not.

[Solly]

Paul said, we were by nature children of wrath. That has to mean something, or again you are back to High Calvinism and the appearance not matching the reality, so to speak.
Jesus said, he sends the rain on the just and unjust alike. That also must mean something.
Some call it a paradox.

[Alien]

Nice idea about speculation, but since it is pure fantasy, I'm not into novels much.

(sigh) Why is it we talk past each other so much?

Anyway, you've answered my question (indirectly) in a reply to someone else:


Are you trying to bring out geebob's argument? How can God command me to love those He does not love? To which, the answer is, because He is God and I'm not. He is the Creator and He operates in ways that I can't and am not expected to. He can hate Esau, but i'm supposed to do Esau good. And so did God for that matter. Esau seemed to enjoy many good things in His carnal life.

So, I'm not sure I follow you Michael. Our Theology informs us that not all will be saved. Yet we are told to do good unto all. And even that will mostly be done internally. Most of my good works would be within my own Church. Most, but not all. Do good unto all "especially those of the household of faith." Stephen was serving the saints in the Church, he wasn't waiting tables at a secular establishment.

My question was (without the "what if" that you dislike) "How would you treat elect and non-elect differently anyway?" and what you say above seems to answer that ... you wouldn't treat them differently because you are commanded to love everyone.

Fair enough.

[themuzicman]

Are you trying to bring out geebob's argument? How can God command me to love those He does not love? To which, the answer is, because He is God and I'm not. He is the Creator and He operates in ways that I can't and am not expected to. He can hate Esau, but i'm supposed to do Esau good. And so did God for that matter. Esau seemed to enjoy many good things in His carnal life.

Not after any particular argument, really, although it seems an interesting one.

So, I'm not sure I follow you Michael. Our Theology informs us that not all will be saved. Yet we are told to do good unto all. And even that will mostly be done internally. Most of my good works would be within my own Church. Most, but not all. Do good unto all "especially those of the household of faith." Stephen was serving the saints in the Church, he wasn't waiting tables at a secular establishment.

Your theology does more than inform you that all will be saved. It informs you that there is a list of those who are elect, and those who are not, and that the list is fixed, and those who aren't on the elect list cannot receive salvation.

Yet, you are commanded to live as though everyone is elect.

That just doesn't seem consistent.

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

Paul said, we were by nature children of wrath. That has to mean something, or again you are back to High Calvinism and the appearance not matching the reality, so to speak.
Jesus said, he sends the rain on the just and unjust alike. That also must mean something.
Some call it a paradox.Thanks for giving me some needed shoves. Of course we all are at one point in time children of wrath, even as others. Yet, God knows who His elect are, in that mass of fallen humanity. So I guess I would argue that God loves some of the children of wrath differently from others, thus resulting in the blessing of the Gospel and faith coming their way.

The big difference is that God knows, we don't. The early Christians were probably hoping God would bring judgment (early) upon Saul of Tarsus. Then God changes him to Paul and it even took awhile for some to really accept that. I'm sure many had Saul pegged for a non elect.

[GoBahnsen]

(sigh) Why is it we talk past each other so much?

Anyway, you've answered my question (indirectly) in a reply to someone else:



My question was (without the "what if" that you dislike) "How would you treat elect and non-elect differently anyway?" and what you say above seems to answer that ... you wouldn't treat them differently because you are commanded to love everyone.

Fair enough.I think Solly summed it up in his post. The Bible tells us how to treat various people. While we are to love all men, we do that with Biblical instructions. With the elect/non elect question, it is always moot, because we do not know who the non elect are. For that matter, we cannot say with 100% certainty who the elect are. We can only know our own hearts and even that is a challenge.

We are told to make our "calling and election sure" by Peter. Peter doesn't deny election, like some here do, he affirms it as a fact. Yet he also understands that we can have artificial conversion, with artificial fruit, etc. We must dig deep and search our hearts, asking God to show us whether we deceive ourselves or not. This goes on throughout life.

The longer I walk with God the more uncomfortable I get with my flesh. The more amazed I become that God is willing to pardon me in Christ. The more I struggle even, that a person such as I can really be saved. And yet I must be. I mean, I cannot lose my soul. I cannot handle that. You cannot handle that. No one can handle that. It is far worse than volunteering to be in one of twin towers on 9-11. Knowing that soon you will be in a firery room, breaking glass with a desk and jumping to your death. At least there you had hope. Hope of death and release. In hell there is no hope...ever. None can handle that. I must find pardon for my sin and I know my only hope is in Christ.

And while I have no problem with Him, I find huge problems with myself. Who shall deliever me from this body of death?

[themuzicman]

We are told to make our "calling and election sure" by Peter. Peter doesn't deny election, like some here do, he affirms it as a fact. Yet he also understands that we can have artificial conversion, with artificial fruit, etc. We must dig deep and search our hearts, asking God to show us whether we deceive ourselves or not. This goes on throughout life.

So, do you know of anyone who has had an artificial conversion, and then God revealed to them upon searching their heart that they weren't one of the elect?



Also, 1 John 3, John states:

And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment

Now, under Calvinism, "one another" would refer to the elect. In fact, Jesus stated:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another ; as I have loved you, that you also love one another . 35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another ."

Again, one another isn't every person in the world, but the elect.

Again, I believe Solly said that we need to understand "love" and "hate" properly, and he is correct in that "love" and "hate" are covenantal terms in Jewish thought.

Thus, Jesus is commanding us to live covenantally with the elect.

Now, if you're going to say that you don't know who the elect are, even though there is a fixed list, how can you live covenantally with them? Or do you live covenantally with elect and non-elect alike?

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

So, do you know of anyone who has had an artificial conversion, and then God revealed to them upon searching their heart that they weren't one of the elect? Personally? None comes to mind. In fact, I have always believed that the true Christian does search his heart. It's the phony, who tends to not even think along those lines. He assumes that "of course" all is well with him...because he is so righteous.


Also, 1 John 3, John states:

And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment

Now, under Calvinism, "one another" would refer to the elect. In fact, Jesus stated:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another ; as I have loved you, that you also love one another . 35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another ."

Again, one another isn't every person in the world, but the elect.

Again, I believe Solly said that we need to understand "love" and "hate" properly, and he is correct in that "love" and "hate" are covenantal terms in Jewish thought.

Thus, Jesus is commanding us to live covenantally with the elect.

Now, if you're going to say that you don't know who the elect are, even though there is a fixed list, how can you live covenantally with them? Or do you live covenantally with elect and non-elect alike?

Michael
I can only assume that certain people are elect because they confess Christ and have become members of the visible Church. But only God knows for sure. John mentions those who were for awhile considered elect (though the word elect is not used) , but they "went out" from the Apostle's doctrine, showing that they were never of us. But, no I don't live with non Christians in the same way I live with those in the Church.

[Solly]

Personally? None comes to mind. In fact, I have always believed that the true Christian does search his heart. It's the phony, who tends to not even think along those lines. He assumes that "of course" all is well with him...because he is so righteous.

I have known one, and knew of one. They just shut off. They stop the examination; they just say, Oh you still believe that stuff do you. The shutters come down, and no chink of light gets in. They give it no further thought.

[Solly]

So, do you know of anyone who has had an artificial conversion, and then God revealed to them upon searching their heart that they weren't one of the elect?



Also, 1 John 3, John states:

And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment

Now, under Calvinism, "one another" would refer to the elect. In fact, Jesus stated:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another ; as I have loved you, that you also love one another . 35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another ."

Again, one another isn't every person in the world, but the elect.

Again, I believe Solly said that we need to understand "love" and "hate" properly, and he is correct in that "love" and "hate" are covenantal terms in Jewish thought.

Thus, Jesus is commanding us to live covenantally with the elect.

Now, if you're going to say that you don't know who the elect are, even though there is a fixed list, how can you live covenantally with them? Or do you live covenantally with elect and non-elect alike?

Michael


Michael, I really do think you are obfuscating rather than being willing to concede a point. After all, i long ago stopped maintaining that John 3.16 refers to the elect, or that 1 john 2.2 doesn't mean the world, yet I can still remain calvinist.
The letters are written to the church, and for the church, so that will be foremost in the writers minds. Yes, we live covenantally, But aren't you quoting selectively? Didn't Jesus say, you shall love your enemies, bless them, etc? Didn't the writers confirm that?

And for the last time, nowhere does it refer to our doing anything for the elect or the non elect, but for the church, and those outside the church. That is the domain of our operations. The 'elect' is something in God's mind, not ours.

[Alien]

This raises a couple of questions in my mind ... please, this is not any kind of challenge, I'm just curious.


We are told to make our "calling and election sure" by Peter.

If God is totally in charge of our salvation and there is nothing we can do to effect it either way, how can we "make our ... election sure"? Isn't it already decided?


Peter doesn't deny election, like some here do, he affirms it as a fact. Yet he also understands that we can have artificial conversion, with artificial fruit, etc. We must dig deep and search our hearts, asking God to show us whether we deceive ourselves or not. This goes on throughout life.

Again, if we are either elect or not and there is nothing we can do about it, why "dig deep", "search our hearts" and generally get ourselves into a state about it, as you seem to be doing? If my understanding is correct, then we are either on the right train or the wrong train. The tracks either lead to heaven or hell, and we didn't choose which one to get on and we can't stop the train and we can't change the destination. So, why worry about it? OK, I can see how you can want to find out which train you are on, but let's say you did find out that you are on the wrong one, what can you do? "Nothing" seems to be the answer.


The longer I walk with God the more uncomfortable I get with my flesh. The more amazed I become that God is willing to pardon me in Christ. The more I struggle even, that a person such as I can really be saved. And yet I must be. I mean, I cannot lose my soul. I cannot handle that. You cannot handle that. No one can handle that. It is far worse than volunteering to be in one of twin towers on 9-11. Knowing that soon you will be in a firery room, breaking glass with a desk and jumping to your death. At least there you had hope. Hope of death and release. In hell there is no hope...ever.


Do you believe hell will be eternal fiery torture? (Just interested)


None can handle that. I must find pardon for my sin and I know my only hope is in Christ.

And while I have no problem with Him, I find huge problems with myself. Who shall deliever me from this body of death?

How can you "find pardon" if it is all already fixed? If you are elect, then you could go and try to set a record for sinning and God will still save you, right? If not, then you could dedicate you life to "good works" and you'd still go to hell. So why get in a lather over it? Isn't it all out of your control?

I repeat, these are serious questions. I have learned a lot about Calvinism on this thread, and I would like to continue the process. If any other Calvinists would like to answer, please jump in. I'd particularly like to hear from Solly.

Thanks, Tony.

[GoBahnsen]

Good questions Tony and I appreciate the tone in your asking them. I'll try to answer briefly from my tiny mind.


This raises a couple of questions in my mind ... please, this is not any kind of challenge, I'm just curious.



If God is totally in charge of our salvation and there is nothing we can do to effect it either way, how can we "make our ... election sure"? Isn't it already decided?
It is decided in God's mind, not ours. I don't know what God has decided. But I'm encouraged for several reasons. In my estimation, God has chosen that I should be born into a family where the Gospel, though weakly held to, was held to none the less. God decided I should hear the Gospel, many never have and never will. God has decided that I should believe the Gospel, that I should receive Christ. God has decided that I take it all very seriously. God has decided that I should hate my sin and fight against it. God has decided that I should move toward Christ and away from my sin which I formerly loved.

And though I see so much work left to be done, I'm encouraged that God has decided for me, or so it appears. I look at His promises and I find that they are to sinners. I qualify for that one. To the broken and contrite of heart. I see hope for me there. To those who are weary and heavy laden. I say "yes Jesus". To those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. I say "I need it Jesus". And so on and so on.

So I'm greatly encouraged, but at the same time...the Apostle wisely says "GB don't rest in those things. Move on with Christ. Don't look back, look ahead." If I shrink back, God has no pleasure in my soul. Therefore I must press forward. To God my election is fixed, to me it is not. And just as if I really believed a bomb was in a building, I would head for the doors. So believing in Christ causes us to move in the direction that His Word directs us. We want to be sure about eternal matters. We provide for earthly retirement, how much more the eternal? So Christianity is never stagnant. It never just sits there in complacency and apathy. We press on toward the high call.

It makes no sense to foolishly wander in circles, wondering if God chose me or not. I can't do anything about that. But I can move toward Christ all the more. I say "I can" because I am doing it (by God's grace). I don't say everyone can, because the Bible says otherwise and I see the evidence in so many who refuse to be wise about Salvation in Christ. I see the "cannot" play itself out in their "will not". I see them stuck and myself freed, I move on in holy fear. Like a group of criminals schackled by the ankles. Our doom is sure as we march toward death in the darkness of night. Suddenly my schackles fall off, a voice says "run". I say "what about them?" The voice says "I will deal with them, you run and don't look back lest a worse thing befall thee."

Ok, that isn't at all meant to communicate that Christians don't care about the lost. But it is to say that we don't get "hung up" about them. We plead with them like Pilgrim in his journey from the city of destruction. We say "come with us..." then we must go, whether they join us or not. The Christian knows he has to listen to that voice. "Run and don't look back, lest a worse thing befall thee!"



Again, if we are either elect or not and there is nothing we can do about it, why "dig deep", "search our hearts" and generally get ourselves into a state about it, as you seem to be doing? If my understanding is correct, then we are either on the right train or the wrong train. The tracks either lead to heaven or hell, and we didn't choose which one to get on and we can't stop the train and we can't change the destination. So, why worry about it? OK, I can see how you can want to find out which train you are on, but let's say you did find out that you are on the wrong one, what can you do? "Nothing" seems to be the answer.
I guess you're stuck in the idea of fatalism. My wayward brother is stuck there. We argue about the Bible and he gives me all the junk about how he is only doing what is predestined. Junk I say! Pure junk to the Calvinist who believes in a predestinating God. To that God's voice, we run according to His command.

I cry back to my brother in the city of destruction. But he cannot hear me. He cannot hear the voice of my Shepherd. I run onward in holy fear. Rubbing the soreness on my ankles, caused by years of being schackled. I don't understand it, as I run. Why me? I ask, as I run. I'm confused, but I run. The voice is with me. Run from sin...run Pilgrim, get to Zion. Stay on the narrow path and turn neither to the left or to the right. Who are you Lord? I'm Jesus, don't look back. Get to Zion and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.


Do you believe hell will be eternal fiery torture? (Just interested)
I believe Hell is what the Bible says it is. Jesus told me to fear God who has the power to cast body and soul into hell. Jesus told me to cut off my right hand and pluck out my eye to avoid it's terrors, for they are far worse thatn harming my body. Jesus told me a story about a man who wanted only of a drop of water on his tongue. Run Pilgrim run, don't look back. But what about the man in hell Lord, will he get that drop of water? Run Pilgrim. Who are you Lord? "I'm Jesus, listen to Me and live." Yes Lord. But I have so many questions. "Not now...now is not the time. Run and don't look back."



How can you "find pardon" if it is all already fixed? If you are elect, then you could go and try to set a record for sinning and God will still save you, right? If not, then you could dedicate you life to "good works" and you'd still go to hell. So why get in a lather over it? Isn't it all out of your control?
Because my Savior told me to run and not look back. But Lord, a man asked me why I should be in such a lather if you have knowledge of my end? "Listen not unto him, do as I say...get to Zion and be swift about it...the man cannot help you...answers are coming, now is not the time."




I repeat, these are serious questions. I have learned a lot about Calvinism on this thread, and I would like to continue the process. If any other Calvinists would like to answer, please jump in. I'd particularly like to hear from Solly.

Thanks, Tony.
Lord, the man's name is Tony and he has serious questions.

"I'm familiar with Tony, his questions are those of many. Listen to my voice. Keep your eye straight and do not look back."

Lord, is Tony lost?

"What is that to you? That is for Me to know. He has been invited to the feast."

But will he be there?

"He has been invited...Your question is not for you to ask at this time. I will deal with Tony, you run...and don't look back."

[Alien]

Good questions Tony and I appreciate the tone in your asking them. I'll try to answer briefly from my tiny mind.

Thank you for you answers. I'm still not quite clear though ...


I asked: If God is totally in charge of our salvation and there is nothing we can do to effect it either way, how can we "make our ... election sure"? Isn't it already decided?

It is decided in God's mind, not ours. I don't know what God has decided. But I'm encouraged for several reasons. In my estimation, God has chosen that I should be born into a family where the Gospel, though weakly held to, was held to none the less. God decided I should hear the Gospel, many never have and never will. God has decided that I should believe the Gospel, that I should receive Christ. God has decided that I take it all very seriously. God has decided that I should hate my sin and fight against it. God has decided that I should move toward Christ and away from my sin which I formerly loved.


OK, but that wasn't quite what I meant. That verse seems to be telling us to "make our election sure". I queried it because I thought that nothing we could do would make anything happen regarding our election, as you confirmed in your first sentence. So, how does this verse, which seems to be saying that we can do something to ensure our election, support the Calvinist position?


I guess you're stuck in the idea of fatalism. My wayward brother is stuck there. We argue about the Bible and he gives me all the junk about how he is only doing what is predestined. Junk I say! Pure junk to the Calvinist who believes in a predestinating God. To that God's voice, we run according to His command.

Actually I'm not "stuck" anywhere, I'm just try to figure out what Calvinists believe about certain things (and you are kindly helping me to do so).

So, what is the difference between predestination and fatalism? It would seem to me that if God has predestined everything that happens "from the beginning of the world" then everything that you or I choose to do is what He has already decided that we will do, no? So, how can anything I do alter that? If I decide to turn left He predestined that. If I decide to turn right instead, he predestined that I would first decide to turn left than change my mind and turn right. But maybe that is not the correct meaning of "predestination"? Please explain.


I asked: Do you believe hell will be eternal fiery torture? (Just interested)

I believe Hell is what the Bible says it is. Jesus told me to fear God who has the power to cast body and soul into hell. Jesus told me to cut off my right hand and pluck out my eye to avoid it's terrors, for they are far worse thatn harming my body. Jesus told me a story about a man who wanted only of a drop of water on his tongue. Run Pilgrim run, don't look back. But what about the man in hell Lord, will he get that drop of water? Run Pilgrim. Who are you Lord? "I'm Jesus, listen to Me and live." Yes Lord. But I have so many questions. "Not now...now is not the time. Run and don't look back."


Is that a "yes"?


Because my Savior told me to run and not look back. But Lord, a man asked me why I should be in such a lather if you have knowledge of my end? "Listen not unto him, do as I say...get to Zion and be swift about it...the man cannot help you...answers are coming, now is not the time."


I'm not trying to help you, I'm asking you to help me! I'll take the first sentence as your answer.

Thanks anyway ... have you ever been a preacher, by the way?