quote:

Calvinists don't believe salvation is built in to anyone.

These are three of the "five points" of Calvinism, as copied from a website called reformationbiblecollege.org:

Unconditional Election
In contrast to the Arminian view that God elected some based on their foreseen faith in Christ, Reformed theology teaches the doctrine of unconditional election. This means that God’s election of sinners to salvation is not conditioned on anything outside of God’s nature. God is not dependent in any way on His creatures.

Limited Atonement
In contrast to the Arminian view that Christ’s death was for all of humanity, making the redemption of all human beings possible, Reformed theology teaches the doctrine of limited atonement (or better, definite atonement). This means that rather than making redemption possible, Christ actually accomplished the redemption of those for whom He died.

Irresistible Grace
In contrast to the Arminian view that grace is resistible, Reformed theology teaches the doctrine of irresistible grace. Reformed theology teaches that the Holy Spirit will regenerate all those for whom Christ died. While unbelievers may resist the external call of the gospel, the elect among them will hear and respond to the internal call. God will sovereignly give them the gift of faith, and they will walk out of the tomb of spiritual death.

And this from the Westminster Larger Catechism, as provided in a PDF by a local Reformed Presbyterian church's website:

Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who
are true members of the church invisible.

Q. 62. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world
do profess the true religion, and of their children.

Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government;
of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies;
and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of
grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that
whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be
gathered into one under Christ the head.

Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in
grace and glory.

Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they
are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and
husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his
free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth,
in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit; savingly
enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they
(although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his
call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.

Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called: although others may be, and often
are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of
the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being
justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ

Make of those two posts what you will. The "five points" are, in my opinion, more contentious than the Westminster Catechism. The Catechism doesn't say that the elect were determined by God at the beginning of time. So, those elect mentioned in the Catechism could be no different than those I mentioned earlier when I made this statement:

quote:

It is logical to me that God would predestine those he foreknew would respond to His grace. He'd predestine them to play their perfect role in His plan.

On Wikipedia, there is a table generally comparing Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Arminianism. I could have already told you that I largely identify with Arminianism. And I do. However, I have not been in a relationship with the Lord long enough yet to say with confidence what I think about perseverance and apostasy. God tells us that when we respond to his grace and are born again we're indwelled by his Holy Ghost. I find it difficult at this point to concede that someone could later resist that indwelled Spirit to the point of losing it.

I interpret Romans 1:28 as God's cessation of pursuit, not his abandonment of someone who had previously surrendered.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:

Thanks. If true, then I don't think Calvinism nor Presbyterian are for me. It doesn't seem consistent w/ what I perceive the bible reflects. I would like to understand the basis of that belief and supported by writings in the Old and/or New Testaments.

I'm interjecting because you say you're still at the beginning of learning. Diving into that issue, while important to some denominations, risks falling into the pitfall of majoring in the minors. I would encourage you to keep first things first and as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:1-2, "When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

Calvinism is one side of the many seemingly inconsistencies or contradictions taught by the Bible. The Bible teaches that there is only one God and, yet, the Bible also teaches the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Human wisdom tries to reconcile and ascertain the 'truth' but fails because the nature of an infinite God is outside the capacity of our corrupted limited minds to understand. We can simply accept that God is One while at the same time, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is the fullness of God.

In the same way, the Bible teaches God is the one who has predestined those who will be saved according to his sovereignty and foreknowledge. Paul in Romans 8:29-30 says, "For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." Ephesians 1:4-5 says, "For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love, He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will."

Yet, when the jailor asked Paul and Silas what must he do to be saved in Acts 16:29-31, they replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved -- you and your household." They didn't answer that if he was fortunate to have won the divine lottery and was chosen for salvation by God before creation then he had nothing to worry about. They said salvation is conditional based on his believing in Jesus.

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." We either believe that Jesus was telling the truth when He said "whoever" with no qualifications or we don't.

That's not to say I don't believe God has predestined believers, I have to believe both -- God's sovereignty over who gets saved and man's responsibility to believe in Jesus to get saved -- because I believe the Bible teaches both just like it teaches there is only one God while also teaching the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

While the Bible may be complex, it is the ONLY book in the world where, when someone opens to read it with a sincere desire to understand, the Author shows up to guide the person and open their their heart and their eyes.

I wish you well.

What Rey said.

How does one handle different passages about the same event that are directly contradictory in terms of basic facts stated. In those cases is it possible to believe both accounts though the event could not have occurred both ways as described.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The Catechism doesn't say that the elect were determined by God at the beginning of time.

Ephesians 1:4-5 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will

Hey Rey, Thanks. Sorry for the confusion - I didn't mean to suggest I was going to dive into that topic immediately. I'm not yet capable - I don't know enough and wouldn't know how to discern truths.

Plan is to still just start at the beginning w/ basics. One day in the future, when I'm a little more educated and at a point where I may be ready to pick a denomination to join, I dig into it. But for now, I'm basically starting with the basics and consider myself non-denominational. Although I have to say that I'm skeptical of all denominations at this point given how much flexibility and personal interpretation / belief is allowed. It seems like it will be an exercise of not picking the most accurate / true denomination but rather the one which I believe is most true. Even catholicism seems fraught with human interpretations over the past thousands of years. But at this point, it seems like a baseline to start from.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
How does one handle different passages about the same event that are directly contradictory in terms of basic facts stated. In those cases is it possible to believe both accounts though the event could not have occurred both ways as described.

Since you say "different passages about the same event," I would assume you mean primarily the differences in the four gospel accounts and not doctrines per se. But it could apply to other events narrated more than once in the Bible.

The differences in the gospels speak to the authenticity of the different perspectives of the different independent narrators. I've not interviewed witnesses to an event myself but supposedly, a unified narrative with no deviation among witnesses indicates more of a collusion or a conspiracy.

The Bible has been around or the parts that went into it for around two thousand years. With so many detractors of the Christian faith, if there were any definitive evidence showing the Bible is not trustworthy, surely, it would have been well-spread by now.

Instead you have stories of atheists becoming Christians in their attempt to discredit the story of Jesus such as Lee Strobel, who was a journalist when journalists were actually journalists.

If you have any specific passages in mind that are materially contradictory to each other, feel free to post them. Because chances are you wouldn't be the first one to have raised any particular issue that hasn't been resolved by minds better than mine.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
How does one handle different passages about the same event that are directly contradictory in terms of basic facts stated. In those cases is it possible to believe both accounts though the event could not have occurred both ways as described.

Obviously I am NOT an expert. However, I had the same question and my understanding after watching the Great Courses series, there is a diversity of perspectives intentionally built into the bible (new testament). In diverse accounts (for example, the Temple incident reflected in Mark, Mathew, Luke are generally consistent in placing this at the end of Jesus' ministry whereas in John it's placed at the beginning.

The Great Courses suggest that there are 3 ways to reconcile diversity like this: 1) harmonization, 2) rule of truth, 3) allegorical interpretation. For example, in this case, it's generally accepted that Mark, Luke, Mathew place it historically correct at the end of Jesus' ministry. John's placement at the beginning may have been, while historically incorrect, to encourage readers to consider the incident allegorically, in a more spiritual manner.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Hey Rey, Thanks. Sorry for the confusion - I didn't mean to suggest I was going to dive into that topic immediately. I'm not yet capable - I don't know enough and wouldn't know how to discern truths.

Plan is to still just start at the beginning w/ basics. One day in the future, when I'm a little more educated and at a point where I may be ready to pick a denomination to join, I dig into it. But for now, I'm basically starting with the basics and consider myself non-denominational. Although I have to say that I'm skeptical of all denominations at this point given how much flexibility and personal interpretation / belief is allowed. It seems like it will be an exercise of not picking the most accurate / true denomination but rather the one which I believe is most true. Even catholicism seems fraught with human interpretations over the past thousands of years. But at this point, it seems like a baseline to start from.

Wanting to join the “most accurate” or “true” denomination is commendable — it shows you’re serious about following Jesus the way the early believers were. But the straight truth is you’re not going to find one single denomination that is *the* most accurate or “true” church. Whatever criteria you use to measure them will ultimately rest on your own interpretation of what matters most.

Take something like Calvinism — most denominations land on one side or the other. Who gets to say which one is definitively right? That’s why a balanced, humble approach I’ve come across is so helpful:

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

It means the core gospel truths are what unite all true Christians. On secondary (non-essential) matters — baptism methods, worship styles, views on end times, spiritual gifts, etc. — we should give other believers liberty to differ, and in all things show charity. Disagreement doesn’t have to become division or hostility; we extend the same grace to others that we need for ourselves.

Different denominations simply emphasize different non-essentials. That’s why the search for a church shouldn’t be about hunting for the “perfect” one. (I like to joke that I found the perfect church once but they asked me not to come back because they wanted to keep it perfect!)

Instead, here’s a helpful order of priorities when looking for a local church:

1. Does the church believe and preach the essentials of the Christian faith? (Who Jesus is, what He did for our salvation, the authority of Scripture, the Trinity, etc.)

2. Is the church — leaders and members — actively building out (sharing the gospel) and building up (discipling and encouraging believers to grow)?

3. Only after those two are solid: Can you live with the non-essentials this church emphasizes?

For that third one, worship style is a classic example. Some churches sing only hymns with no instruments; others feel like a modern concert. There’s a whole spectrum in between. How a church worships isn’t essential to the faith, but it can still be personally important to you.

Even in the New Testament we see this reality. In Revelation 2–3, Jesus personally addresses seven real first-century churches. Only two of them (Smyrna and Philadelphia) received no rebuke. The other five each had at least one area where they were falling short. That tells us that imperfect churches have existed from the very beginning — yet Jesus still walked among them and called them His own.

Thanks Rey!

The first part: that's the anticipation that seems to be forming as a go. Part of my educational focus will be on understanding what the Essentials are. I'm not sure I could enumerate them yet. And after that, I'l consider my beliefs in the non-essentials.

The priority list is helpful; I hope soon that the Essentials will be less abstract than they are for me now. I will keep this prioritization of considerations in mind when I'm ready to pick a denomination and church. I don't believe I'm close to that time yet though.

Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Part of my educational focus will be on understanding what the Essentials are. I'm not sure I could enumerate them yet.

If I may, the first essential thing to know is that the essentials of salvation are different from the essentials of Biblical Christianity.

- The essentials of salvation are what the Bible says actually makes a person saved.
- The essentials of Biblical Christianity are what the Bible says a genuine Christian believes.

The essentials of salvation are:
1) Know you are a sinner (Romans 3:23).
2) Know that God loves you and sent Jesus to pay the penalty for your sin (Romans 5:8).
3) Trust Jesus alone for your salvation (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10).

The thief on the cross is a powerful illustration of this. He didn’t know any catechism, wasn’t baptized, and hadn’t even had time to understand any deeper Bible doctrine. He simply acknowledged his sins and believed enough to ask Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. Jesus assured him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

The essentials of Biblical Christianity are understanding what the Bible teaches about:

1. The nature of Jesus: That He is fully God and fully man. He died as the promised sacrifice for our sins and rose bodily from the dead. That He is the only way to God and He will return visibly to judge the living and the dead and establish His eternal kingdom. Believing in anything else is believing in a different Jesus. John 1:1,14; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; John 14:6; Acts 1:11; 2 Timothy 4:1.

2. The nature of God: That God is one existing eternally in three distinct persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — who are co-equal, co-eternal, and of the same essence. Each person is fully God, yet there is only one God, not three gods. Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 14:16-17.

3. The nature of Salvation: Salvation is entirely a free gift from God, received by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. It cannot be earned or deserved by any good works, religious rituals, or human effort. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory, but are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Christians do good works because they are saved, not in order to be saved. Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23-24, Titus 3:5.

4. The Authority of Scripture: That the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, the sole and final authority for faith and practice. It is sufficient for all matters of doctrine and conduct, needing no additional revelations, traditions, or human writings to complete or supersede it. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Psalm 119:105, Hebrews 4:12.

5. The Sanctification of Believers: Genuine salvation always produces a transformed life. The Holy Spirit makes the believer a new creation, giving them a new heart and new spirit so that Christ now lives in them. The old life is gone; the new life is lived by faith in the Son of God who loved them and gave Himself for them. 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 2:20, Ezekiel 36:26.

6. The nature of the Church: The universal Church is all true believers in Jesus Christ across different traditions, languages, countries, and time periods. The local church is the visible gathering of believers where Christians worship together, are taught the Word, encouraged, held accountable, and equipped to serve. Every Christian should be actively involved in a local church, giving of their time and talent to build others up while also being built up themselves. Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, Hebrews 10:24-25, Acts 2:42-47.

Those are the essentials of Biblical Christianity. They are also reflected in the various historic creeds that were carefully hammered out over the history of the Church specifically to combat heresies. In fact, most of the letters in the New Testament were written to correct false teaching and protect these very essentials of Biblical Christianity from being corrupted.

BlackTalonJHP, I said exactly what you quoted. I was referring to the Wesminster Catechism, not the Bible. I have already acknowledged that the Bible has much to say about predestination.

The Catholic Catechism opts not to define predestined (or other variants of the word) in its glossary, and makes no clear position on the matter known in other portions of the text.

The Westminster Catechism also doesn't go so far (in the relevant portions I read) as to declare in its interpretive answers to the various prompts that God determined who'd be saved at the beginning.

Of course it cites the Bible for support, including Ephesians chapter 1. Ultimately Calvinism is more about God's sovereignty than it is about predestination. In reading Ephesians 1:4-11 in the KJV, I see no reason why the "predestined" can't be everyone, with their free will and pride making it possible for them to ultimately refuse their inheritance.

I am but a young believer, and I adhere to Rey's approach: stick to the essentials.

What makes the Calvinist outlook on predestination so controversial is it becomes an essential matter, rather than secondary, because it's a matter of salvation.

As I said before: I trust Christ for my salvation; I trust God; I'll remain steadfast with the help of His Spirit. If He shows me the Eucharist is true, I'll get my butt back in a Catholic church, because why would I want to forego that sacrament? If He shows me TULIP is true, then I'll apply it to my life however it may serve to bring Him more glory.

Thank you, Rey, for your two most recent posts. That is very good guidance.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

What makes the Calvinist outlook on predestination so controversial is it becomes an essential matter, rather than secondary, because it's a matter of salvation.

I've never seen a Calvinist teach or believe that their belief of predestination is an essential matter for salvation, do you have examples?

Soteriology is of course an essential matter, but Calvinists believe that salvation is by God's grace through faith in Christ alone because that's what the Bible teaches. They don't believe it's inherent. They believe what's written in Romans 5.

As it relates to the Canons of Dort, it is indeed a description of part of Reformed soteriology (I wouldn't attribute it to Calvin since he was long gone at the time) but this is simply a summary of the beliefs. Reformed doctrine says that scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church (the "elect" you mentioned).

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
If I may, the first essential thing to know is that the essentials of salvation are different from the essentials of Biblical Christianity.

Awesome! Thanks Rey - this is a great start and very helpful.

quote:

The Catholic Catechism opts not to define predestined (or other variants of the word) in its glossary, and makes no clear position on the matter known in other portions of the text.

We don't believe that people are predestined for heaven or hell. Individual salvation is a choice each of us is free to accept or reject.

I say Calvinism becomes a "matter of salvation" because it takes Rey's previous content found here:

quote:

The essentials of salvation are:
1) Know you are a sinner (Romans 3:23).
2) Know that God loves you and sent Jesus to pay the penalty for your sin (Romans 5:8).
3) Trust Jesus alone for your salvation (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10).

And changes it to this...

The essentials of salvation are:
1) Know you are a sinner (Romans 3:23).
2) Know that God loves you and sent Jesus to pay the penalty for your sin, if you are one of the fortunate elect.
3) Trust Jesus alone for your salvation (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10).

No Calvinist would say that fortune is part of salvation. It's by God's grace, wouldn't you agree? Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"
To say that Calvinist doctrine bases salvation on fortune is really an unfortunate mischaracterization.

You don't believe that Christ only paid the penalty for sin for those who believe in Him (John 3)?
Are you making a case for universalism?

Believers, Christians, elect, chosen, those who belong to Christ, the church, etc. are all referring to the same group of people. I realize you take exception to the terms chosen, elect, and predestined but those are biblical terms. Could you give an exegesis of Ephesians 1:4-5?

By God's grace, yes, I would agree.

"Fortunate" may not have been the best word choice, but I think it more-or-less conveys what I was trying to illustrate.

I understand that a Calvinist wouldn't define it that way, and it is not an appropriate characterization.

I am NOT making a case for Universalism. Under no circumstances would I do that. That should be evident in our discussion thus far.

I am not in a position to give an exegesis of Ephesians 1:4-5. I think "take exception" actually mischaracterizes my position, where Calvinism is concerned. It does currently conflict with what I believe about salvation, but I am not going to get exceptionally frustrated in a discussion.

The same way I am not in a position to give an exegesis on that scripture, I am not in a position to give exegesis on scripture that would defend my current position. Long-story-short, I am simply not yet read and studied enough in scripture.