Calling All Calvinists......

[Hapax Legomena]

(Part Two of Two-Part Answer)

I get that once we are born we are sinful and deserve hell but if that’s the case and I was born as one of the non-elect, I would rather not be born at all.

 

There are millions of people on the earth who are very pleased not to be related to the God of the Bible in any possible way. Some will trust Him; others will not.

And it still doesn’t explain WHY? Why choose some and not others? Is it just for the heck of it? Just because He can? Come on, that seems really petty. I need a real answer.

 

The real answer is that God has acted as He has determined to act. He has told us some things. Other things he has not told us. Job is very clear on this point when He delineates the things that only God knows. Moses makes the point as well when he says that the secret things belong to God.

Personally, I do not struggle with having to know exactly why God has done A rather than B. One day I may find out. Perhaps I will never find out.

If I were to find the answer to that question, I could devise another question that I could not answer.

There is no end to this type of questioning unless a person were to become God and know everything.

It is enough to know that God has given us His word that contains everything pertaining to life and godliness.

And what do we do about a verse like John 3:16? “For God so loved the world (the elect? Those he chose ahead of time?) that He gave his only begotten son, that whosever (of the elect?), believeth in Him (wait I thought it was irresistible grace, this sounds like a choice), should not perish but have everlasting life.”

 

Again, there is a difference of opinion on this verse. The five-point Calvinist reads this verse as if the word “world” is limited to the elect. However, the better view is that the word “world” is not a limited group.

Further the word “whosoever” means just that: anyone.

The Bible nowhere claims that a person who wants to trust in Jesus is not able to do so because he or she is not elect. God will in no way cast out those who come to him.

This has all been driving me a little batty. I have been going back and forth on this for a long time now and I still can’t reconcile the two opposing viewpoints. They can’t both be true and I am all about truth, ya know?

 

These are not opposing or contradictory views. Perhaps it would help to think of them as parallel ideas. In other words, when we think that God has made sovereign choices that are difficult for us to understand, we must also realize that he has stated that man is responsible. Both are true. I cannot merely champion one of these ideas to the exclusion or minimization of the other.

Another helpful thought is to think of God in terms of what the Scripture says about Him rather than what we want to believe about Him. Then, we must think of the issues before us in terms of His character.

For example, when I am tempted to think that God’s plan does not provide as much glory as another plan I have considered, I must recall that God is all knowing. He knew about that plan when He decided to choose the one the Bible presents. Further, since God is more loving than I, His plan is infinitely more loving than mine.

We can use this kind of approach to think through these issues. In fact, we must use this approach. Not to do so merely results in our construction of a God who is not the God of the Bible but a god made after ourselves.

At that point we have turned the tables, having made God in our image.

 

[Aubrey]

I was raised the opposite of Calvinism, too. I met one in college, & the very idea made me so mad, I told her I'd go to hell just to spite such an unfair salvation. :lol:

 

I know what you mean about the verses about election, though. The irresistible grace is what gets me. I tried walking away from God once. I wanted bad things in my life to be my own fault. I wanted the questions about why God would allow different things to go away. I'd had a difficult childhood & was in a hard spot in my marriage.

 

It was John 3:16 & esp 17 that began to help me see the strong points to the Calvinist argument of election, but I put that together w/ what I'd already been taught & came out w/ -- what if *everyone* is elected? What if Jesus paid the price for the sins of the whole world?

 

What if our sin is like HUGE credit card debt? Some of us see & accept that God has paid it for us, that we are now righteous in His eyes. Some of us don't check the balance--maybe we're too busy running from it, hiding from creditors. So our lives are w/out peace, even though peace is readily available. But in the end, on judgment day, what if our accounts all show that our debt is paid? What if it's just Satan who goes to the lake of fire?

 

I imagine a heaven in which God's forgiveness reaches farther than ours. We're commanded to forgive. There's no exception for people who haven't repented to us. We just forgive. What if God does not ask more of us than He gives? What if God's grace is so great that in Heaven, a Jew & a Nazi can stand side by side, completely forgiven, completely redeemed, brothers in Christ, worshiping God together?

 

I don't know for sure. I see scripture that could point both ways. But I *hope.* You know?

[Jugglin'5]

"The Bible nowhereclaims that a person who wants to trust in Jesus is not able to do sobecause he or she is not elect. God will in no way cast out those whocome to him".

 

Yes, so true! The question is being framed as if there are all these people out there who want to believe if only God would let them. In truth we are all like people eating garbage, perfectly content eating our garbage even we we see the gourmet meal on that table over there. Then, God makes some see the goodness of the gourmet meal and they change tables. The others are NOT clamoring to sit at the other table while God is purposefully keeping them out. God commands them to come eat the gourmet food, but they like the garbage. They think the gourmet food is nasty.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Jugglin'5

[Hapax Legomena]

Aubrey,

 

From a human perspective your view "what if" is an interesting one; it may even seem appealing. John Lennon captured this type of thinking in "Imagine."

 

However, the Bible tells us that everyone whose name was not written in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire. It tells us that there is a place called hell and that some people will spend eternity there.

 

On the basis of what the Bible says, it is best to quickly reject and move away from views that are in direct opposition to what God has clearly stated.

 

Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world. However, his death is not accounted to us until we believe the gospel.

 

That's why the Bible says that we are justified by faith. If Christ's death were merely applied to everyone, there would be no need to have any connection between justification and faith.

 

The truth of John 3:16 is followed by the truth of John 3:18: "He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." We must keep both truths in mind.

[Aubrey]

Aubrey,

 

From a human perspective your view "what if" is an interesting one; it may even seem appealing. John Lennon captured this type of thinking in "Imagine."

 

However, the Bible tells us that everyone whose name was not written in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire. It tells us that there is a place called hell and that some people will spend eternity there.

 

On the basis of what the Bible says, it is best to quickly reject and move away from views that are in direct opposition to what God has clearly stated.

 

Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world. However, his death is not accounted to us until we believe the gospel.

 

That's why the Bible says that we are justified by faith. If Christ's death were merely applied to everyone, there would be no need to have any connection between justification and faith.

 

The truth of John 3:16 is followed by the truth of John 3:18: "He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." We must keep both truths in mind.

 

As far as Lennon's song goes, I hope my ideas didn't sound too much like his. I do believe that Jesus is the only way, that there IS a heaven, etc. I also believe that w/out accepting his forgiveness & redemption, we're separated from him, trying to make fulfilled, successful lives w/out much luck.

 

I try to be careful about presenting my position as doctrine. It's merely a hope. I hope that we don't understand his justice because ours is simply white-washed revenge. I hope that those who have missed out on knowing him in this life are not doomed to spend eternity being tormented. I hope that the nature of God that I see in scripture indicates a misunderstanding of the judgment.

 

I try to be careful to say "I hope," though. I still believe that there is blessing in following the steps of salvation laid out in the Bible--to confess that we are sinners & accept Jesus as our savior, to give our hearts to him so that he can change us.

 

I don't think that hoping for the salvation of those who have passed before me violates that. If they're not saved, I will find out soon enough. I assume that seeing God will make everything make sense. I will be able to see his plan & his goodness & everything.

 

In the mean time, though, until I know for sure that someone can't be saved or won't be saved, I'm going to hope as if that person were my own child. Because while eternal separation from God is supposed to be the worst thing, that's so hard to really imagine. Otoh, the thought of spending eternity on one side of a chasm, forever separated from someone I love, that's easier. And then I imagine what lengths I would go to to bridge the chasm. And it's then that I see God, looking out at his lost people, & finding a way.

[Heather in Neverland]

"The Bible nowhereclaims that a person who wants to trust in Jesus is not able to do sobecause he or she is not elect. God will in no way cast out those whocome to him".

 

Yes' date=' so true! The question is being framed as if there are all these people out there who [i']want[/i] to believe if only God would let them. In truth we are all like people eating garbage, perfectly content eating our garbage even we we see the gourmet meal on that table over there. Then, God makes some see the goodness of the gourmet meal and they change tables. The others are NOT clamoring to sit at the other table while God is purposefully keeping them out. God commands them to come eat the gourmet food, but they like the garbage. They think the gourmet food is nasty.

 

Ok, but let's keep in mind that calvinists believe that the elect are chosen in advance before time began and so are the non-elect... so the only reason the non-elect are happy in their sin is because they were born non-elect. If they had been born elect they wouldn't be.

 

We are blaming the non-elect for being non-elect when they were in fact predestined by God to be non-elect.

 

Unless you are telling me that someone God has predestined to be non-elect can hear the gospel, believe, and be changed to one of the elect? Wouldn't that be denying God's immutable quality? Does God predestine some to be non-elect and then later change His mind?

[Hapax Legomena]

Aubrey,

 

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

 

First, by referring to Lennon's song, I wasn't implying that you were agreeing with all of Lennon's ideas.

 

Second, the Biblical concept of hope is different from ours. We say things such as, "I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow." for us the concept has the notion of uncertainty.

 

In contrast, the Biblical concept of hope is confidence. We could substitute confidence and say, "I hope to go to heaven." We have confidence that we will be there. Why? Our confidence is based on the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

When you say you hope people who have not trusted Jesus will be in heaven, you are using the idea in the sense of uncertainty. In other words, you are not expressing certainty about their being in heaven; you are merely expressing the thought that it would be nice if they would be there.

 

Based on what the Bible says, there is absolutely no hope that they will be there. They are condemned because they have not believed.

 

Since that is true, we need to reject holding to a false view. Otherwise, we are in a practical sense saying either we do not believe the Bible or we do not want to believe the Bible. I am sure you are not in that camp; I am just pointing out where that kind of thinking leads.

 

In addition, as we cling to wrong views in the face of the truth of Scripture, we may actually begin to develop a tendancy to reject the Bible in other areas as well. When the Bible speaks of grieving the Holy Spirit and quenching the Spirit's work in our lives, it is giving us an admonition that is more than theoretical. It is this same Spirit who has inspired the Scripture. If we reject what He has inspired, we may grieve Him and quench His work in our lives.

 

Finally, if we are truly concerned about people we need to channel that concern into evangelism by telling them about the coming judgment and the way of salvation through Jesus. Simply, He died in our place and rose again. If we put our trust in Him as our Savior, we have eternal life.

 

Merely thinking wrong thoughts about heaven and the impossible idea that unbelievers will be there one day, is not helpful. God would rather have us recognize that we are ambassadors for Christ, sharing the good news with people who need to know Him.

[Tutor]

I guess my answer would be we are neither until we are conceived (since we do not exist until we are conceived) and once we are conceived we are sinners. So my wish is that if I am not going to be born one of the elect than I would rather not be born.

 

I was asking the question about those who can exist, not those who do not exist, so in that case, your answer would be that we sin because we are sinners because that is what we are upon conception.

 

Also, you cannot wish that you were not born. You were. We need to deal with what the reality is. You (or I) may be part of the elect, you (or I) may not be. God knows. You may know. I don't know (about me). I hope, but I don't know. We are told that we can judge by fruit. Apple trees bear apples, olive trees bear olives, sinners bear sin, renewed natures bear Christ-likeness. My struggle can be summed up this way: If we have new natures, natures redeemed by Christ, where is the conflict? I understand that a sinful nature desires sin, and Christ's nature despises it, so if I have a new nature, why do I still sin? Why do I still desire sin? Do I really desire sin? Or do I despise it when it is revealed to me as sin and only desire it before that point where I recognize it as sin?

 

I can completely sympathize with Paul and still don't understand it:

 

"For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." - Romans 7:14-25

Edited January 29, 2009 by Tutor
conversational in-person tone didn't work online

[Jugglin'5]

Ok, but let's keep in mind that calvinists believe that the elect are chosen in advance before time began and so are the non-elect... so the only reason the non-elect are happy in their sin is because they were born non-elect. If they had been born elect they wouldn't be.

 

We are blaming the non-elect for being non-elect when they were in fact predestined by God to be non-elect.

 

Unless you are telling me that someone God has predestined to be non-elect can hear the gospel, believe, and be changed to one of the elect? Wouldn't that be denying God's immutable quality? Does God predestine some to be non-elect and then later change His mind?

 

 

No, I guess what I am saying is that I believe that ALL of the following propositions are true, and I have no idea how it all works:

 

 

1)ANYONE who believes on Jesus Christ will be saved.

2) No one would choose it if their own accord, because we are born rebels.

3) God commands us rebels to repent and believe.

 

4) Some people CHOOSE to believe.

5) Those people believe BECAUSE God chose them before the foundations of the world, and gave them eyes to see, for reasons known only to Him.

 

 

I am not blaming the non-elect for anything. I am just saying that they WANT to eat the garbage, to go back to my previous analogy. They CHOOSE to eat the garbage. They don't want to sit at the gourmet table, because then they would have to acknowledge the claims of the King of the table over their lives. They would rather sit at the rebel table and eat the garbage. In some ways it seems to me that I, the Calvinist, think more of their free will than you do. :lol:

 

 

Seriously, though, I'm not sure that your objections can be answered in any way other than Job, Paul, and Jesus did. I think you either have to accept what the Bible says about it, or not, and live with that.

[newlifemom]

You all are just too smart for me. Thanks for a great thread. As for me, I'm still

 

 

 

:lurk5:

[Jugglin'5]

I'm sitting here drinking a cup of coffee. As I'm thinking about it, I realize that God predestined me to drink it. But do I want to drink it? Did I choose to drink it? Yes. I'm deliberately leaving out of the equation whether drinking coffee signifies reprobation or salvation. :D But is God unfair to predestine me to drink the coffee? Did I want to drink it? Did some mysterious force pull my hand to work the coffeemaker? Was there a part of mind saying, "No, no. I won't drink the coffee! You can't make me!"? No, of course not. I wanted the coffee darn it. And God planned it that way. Once again I have no idea how this works but I am content the let the Omniscient one who loved me enough to die for me figure it out. And I have faith in His character based on the good things He does and has done, to give Him the benefit if the doubt on the things that seem troublesome to my wee mind.

[Tutor]

The main concept I see pervasively throughout Scripture that does not fit with a strict Calvinist ideology is the statement repeated over and over and over again to believe and to have faith. If God is the one who causes us to believe and have faith this command is useless. But if God is offering us the choice, then the statement to us to believe is understandable and vital.

 

I think the discrepancy seems to appear if you are defining "believe" as "Yes, in my mind I think that is true. I have experienced this and have come to the logical and rational conclusion that it is true." However, I think that the command to believe goes farther than this. Belief in God rests a great deal on faith, and therefore is not "rational" in every respect. In some aspects, yes, but not in all. If it were, faith would not be necessary. Therefore, belief must go beyond rationality. I think that when God tells us to believe, it means to come into an agreement with Him in regards to Truth (what we have been predestined to do) and then to act as if Truth is true. It involves not only the mind but also the heart (faith) and the body (action; evidences that what we now "believe" as true are indeed true). Using this second definition of belief, there is no contradiction. God can predestine* us to believe but, because of the war within us between the sinful flesh nature and the redeemed spiritual nature (which I have admitted in another post is an idea I am wrestling with at the moment - one day it makes sense, another it doesn't :D ) we do not always act like we believe (aka believe in our flesh)... we must purposefully work to believe in this way.

 

*ugh. this doesn't look like it's spelled right. sorry.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Tutor
typos

[Jugglin'5]

I think the discrepancy seems to appear if you are defining "believe" as "Yes, in my mind I think that is true. I have experienced this and have come to the logical and rational conclusion that it is true." However, I think that the command to believe goes farther than this. Belief in God rests a great deal on faith, and therefore is not "rational" in every respect. In some aspects, yes, but not in all. If it were, faith would not be necessary. Therefore, belief must go beyond rationality. I think that when God tells us to believe, it means to come into an agreement with Him in regards to Truth (what we have been predestined to do) and then to act as if Truth is true. It involves not only the mind but also the heart (faith) and the body (action; evidences that what we now "believe" as true are indeed true). Using this second definition of belief, there is no contradiction. God can predestine* us to believe but, because of the war within us between the sinful flesh nature and the redeemed spiritual nature (which I have admitted in another post is an idea I am wrestling with at the moment - one day it makes sense, another it doesn't :D ) we do not always act like we believe (aka believe in our flesh)... we must purposefully work to believe in this way.

 

*ugh. this doesn't look like it's spelled right. sorry.

 

 

 

 

Yes, this is spot on. After all, don't we want our OWN children to have faith and trust in us, even if we don't (or can't) tell them everything right now? Think how much information many of withhold because of age appropriateness. Would not God do the same thing with us? I would be afraid that if God explained everything about His sovereignty and our free will and how those things work together, that my head would explode.

[Hapax Legomena]

You (or I) may be part of the elect, you (or I) may not be. God knows. You may know. I don't know (about me). I hope, but I don't know. We are told that we can judge by fruit. Apple trees bear apples, olive trees bear olives, sinners bear sin, renewed natures bear Christ-likeness. My struggle can be summed up this way: If we have new natures, natures redeemed by Christ, where is the conflict? I understand that a sinful nature desires sin, and Christ's nature despises it, so if I have a new nature, why do I still sin? Why do I still desire sin? Do I really desire sin? Or do I despise it when it is revealed to me as sin and only desire it before that point where I recognize it as sin?

 

 

Tutor,

I appreciate the things you have said and the Romans passage which you were kind enough to include. Paul’s struggle is very instructive for us.

We need to deal with what the reality is.

This is a very brief but important statement. Thanks for making it.

You (or I) may be part of the elect, you (or I) may not be. God knows. You may know. I don't know (about me). I hope, but I don't know.

We can know for sure. If we believe the gospel, we are elect. It is as simple as that. People try to make it more complicated. People try to attach all kinds of conditions to the gospel and faith, but the bottom line is that the gospel message is simple: Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor 15). When we believe the gospel, we have eternal life. If we have eternal life, the things that Paul writes in Ephesians are true about us, including being chosen before the foundation of the world.

We are told that we can judge by fruit. Apple trees bear apples, olive trees bear olives, sinners bear sin, renewed natures bear Christ-likeness.

There is truth in what you say, but some people make false conclusions in connection in regard to the concept of believers and fruit.

We cannot merely look at fruit and determine if someone is saved. There are all kinds of people who do outward acts of kindness without any inner conviction concerning the gospel. In other words, they might help an old lady across the street, but they deny that Jesus died for their sin and rose again.

We cannot look at that fruit and know anything about their eternal condition.

Likewise, we cannot look at the life of a Christian and claim that the person is not a believer because they are doing A, B or C. Christians are very capable of doing all kinds of horrific things even though they have believed the gospel.

The book of 1 Corinthians is a case in point. Paul writes to the Corinthians and calls them saints. He then describes all of the sinful conduct going on within the church, incest, division, divorce, misuse of gifts, etc.

His argument concerning immorality is particularly instructive. In our day, people often say, “So and so is doing immoral things; therefore, she must not be a Christian. If she were a Christian she would never be doing those things.â€

When speaking of immorality Paul does not say, “Stop these things! If you continue to do them, it reveals that you are not a Christians†or “Stop these things, because if you keep doing them you could lose your salvation.â€

Paul says, “Don’t you know that your body is the temple of God?†In other words, the basis of his admonition is the fact that the offender is a Christian. “You are a Christian! Stop this kind of behavior.â€

Perhaps these comments are a bit lengthy, but I wanted to set them forth. It is important that we understand the wonderous nature of the gospel and not cloud it with false notions so prevalent in our day.

The improper consideration of some of these truths has created a situation in which Christians begin to question their salvation when they shouldn’t be doing so. We like to make it complicated; God makes it simple.

Thanks for raising these important points. I appreciate it so much.

My struggle can be summed up this way: If we have new natures, natures redeemed by Christ, where is the conflict? I understand that a sinful nature desires sin, and Christ's nature despises it, so if I have a new nature, why do I still sin? Why do I still desire sin? Do I really desire sin? Or do I despise it when it is revealed to me as sin and only desire it before that point where I recognize it as sin?

 

We still have our old nature as well. If we did not have our old nature, we would have not conflict.

It might help to think of nature in terms of capacity. Our old nature is our capacity to sin. Just because we trust Jesus as Savior does not mean that we no longer have the capacity to sin, to serve ourselves and our own desires. We have the capacity to do things that glorify God and the capacity to do things that leave him out altogether.

We can live our lives in such a way that God has absolutely no place in our lives at all. We work; we play; we raise our kids; we go on vacation; we get old. We can spend all of our time doing one thing or another and leave no place for God in our lives at all.

[Aubrey]

Aubrey,

 

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

 

First, by referring to Lennon's song, I wasn't implying that you were agreeing with all of Lennon's ideas.

 

Second, the Biblical concept of hope is different from ours. We say things such as, "I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow." for us the concept has the notion of uncertainty.

 

In contrast, the Biblical concept of hope is confidence. We could substitute confidence and say, "I hope to go to heaven." We have confidence that we will be there. Why? Our confidence is based on the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

When you say you hope people who have not trusted Jesus will be in heaven, you are using the idea in the sense of uncertainty. In other words, you are not expressing certainty about their being in heaven; you are merely expressing the thought that it would be nice if they would be there.

 

Based on what the Bible says, there is absolutely no hope that they will be there. They are condemned because they have not believed.

 

Since that is true, we need to reject holding to a false view. Otherwise, we are in a practical sense saying either we do not believe the Bible or we do not want to believe the Bible. I am sure you are not in that camp; I am just pointing out where that kind of thinking leads.

 

In addition, as we cling to wrong views in the face of the truth of Scripture, we may actually begin to develop a tendancy to reject the Bible in other areas as well. When the Bible speaks of grieving the Holy Spirit and quenching the Spirit's work in our lives, it is giving us an admonition that is more than theoretical. It is this same Spirit who has inspired the Scripture. If we reject what He has inspired, we may grieve Him and quench His work in our lives.

 

Finally, if we are truly concerned about people we need to channel that concern into evangelism by telling them about the coming judgment and the way of salvation through Jesus. Simply, He died in our place and rose again. If we put our trust in Him as our Savior, we have eternal life.

 

Merely thinking wrong thoughts about heaven and the impossible idea that unbelievers will be there one day, is not helpful. God would rather have us recognize that we are ambassadors for Christ, sharing the good news with people who need to know Him.

 

I'm hesitant to respond because I don't want to seem like I'm arguing too much. I especially don't want to offend you or anyone else.

 

I tend to think about things sort-of backwards. I'm not very good at accepting what's commonly believed. Even as a kid, when we were learning about the universe being heliocentric, part of me wondered, "How can we be SO sure?" W/ regard to the evolution debate, I wonder about both sides--why do some put so much stock in the young earth argument & why do others believe in evolution so passionately? I could see saying that one or the other makes the most sense given what we currently know, but I can't see risking much else on something like that. I just don't have that much confidence in my limited ability to know anything.

 

I've seen the Bible interpreted a lot of different ways. I was raised in a church that claimed you couldn't be saved unless you were baptized. I later was in one that said you weren't filled with the Spirit unless you could speak in tongues. I've heard the debates about women preaching, about sprinkling vs. immersion, and about election vs. free grace.

 

Everybody has scripture to back what they believe. Well...mostly. :lol: Unless God is schizophrenic, that's hard to understand. ;)

 

One of the ways that I have reconciled my faith is to center what I believe on 2 things. 1. The nature of God. He is good. I may not always understand that, but that's a basic plumbline for me. 2. Jesus said that all the law & all the prophets hang on these 2 things: that we love one another & that we love God.

 

I believe that the Bible is 100% true w/out any contradictions, but I also see the problems that are there. If I wanted to live by the Bible exclusively (i.e. w/out the Holy Spirit to guide & interpret, etc.), I think I'd be paralyzed trying to figure it all out. Instead, I start w/ the 2 things above: love others, love God. God is good. I measure everything by that.

 

So when I come to a verse that seems to say that God has chosen to condemn some people to eternal hell, I think about the fact that he is good. That means either a) there is some goodness in this election that I don't understand or b) I don't really understand what this verse is saying.

 

Next, I remember that I'm supposed to love God & love others. It seems offensive to me to tell people that they have been chosen by God to be eternally condemned to hell so that the rest of us will more greatly appreciate our salvation. *IF* that's true, telling them won't do any good anyway. If it's not, telling them is the worst kind of insult.

 

The kind of hope I'm describing is not rejecting the Bible, it's merely acknowledging my human ability to understand it. Sure, I see the verses that look like they mean some people are going to hell, whether it's because they weren't chosen or whether it's because they failed to submit themselves to Christ. And that could very well be.

 

It's just that I see another possibility, too. I'm not *expecting* that there's universal salvation or living a sinful life because I think free salvation (w/out repentance, etc.) is assured. Instead, I'm trying to follow the Lord even more because I see the blessing in doing so, because I am grateful for any salvation.

 

As far as evangelism, I do tell people about Jesus. I do tell them what he has done for them, but I do it because God is good. Not because I'm convinced they'll go to hell if I don't. Sure, it's possible. But generally, they already know that possibility is there. Satan's job is to condemn. He's the voice in our heads telling us that we're hopeless failures. When I witness to someone, I want to be a voice of hope. I want to share Good News. Kwim?

 

I'm not saying you should agree w/ me. I'm only saying that I don't think the Bible is *quite* as clear on the matter as you're suggesting. I partly take this stance because I don't like the "we never know what the state of a person's heart was when he died" line. I think that if we're going to tell people that if they don't accept the salvation Christ offers, they're going to hell, then we have to be able to say the same to a grieving person about a lost loved one. Since I'm not ready to do that, though, I go back to the scripture & I read again, & I wonder.

 

You're right. In the context I'm talking about, I mean hope as hope, not confidence. Ultimately, my confidence is in the Lord. Since we all have different ideas & different denominations, etc., I figure a good deal of us are wrong about a bunch of things. I'm bracing myself to take some hits when we find out the whole truth about everything, & since I'm in the minority on this point, I figure there are good odds that this will be one of the things he shakes his head at me for. Until I know for sure, though, I'm going to keep hoping. In the uncertain sense. :001_smile:

[Heather in Neverland]

I'm hesitant to respond because I don't want to seem like I'm arguing too much. I especially don't want to offend you or anyone else.

 

I tend to think about things sort-of backwards. I'm not very good at accepting what's commonly believed. Even as a kid, when we were learning about the universe being heliocentric, part of me wondered, "How can we be SO sure?" W/ regard to the evolution debate, I wonder about both sides--why do some put so much stock in the young earth argument & why do others believe in evolution so passionately? I could see saying that one or the other makes the most sense given what we currently know, but I can't see risking much else on something like that. I just don't have that much confidence in my limited ability to know anything.

 

I've seen the Bible interpreted a lot of different ways. I was raised in a church that claimed you couldn't be saved unless you were baptized. I later was in one that said you weren't filled with the Spirit unless you could speak in tongues. I've heard the debates about women preaching, about sprinkling vs. immersion, and about election vs. free grace.

 

Everybody has scripture to back what they believe. Well...mostly. :lol: Unless God is schizophrenic, that's hard to understand. ;)

 

One of the ways that I have reconciled my faith is to center what I believe on 2 things. 1. The nature of God. He is good. I may not always understand that, but that's a basic plumbline for me. 2. Jesus said that all the law & all the prophets hang on these 2 things: that we love one another & that we love God.

 

I believe that the Bible is 100% true w/out any contradictions, but I also see the problems that are there. If I wanted to live by the Bible exclusively (i.e. w/out the Holy Spirit to guide & interpret, etc.), I think I'd be paralyzed trying to figure it all out. Instead, I start w/ the 2 things above: love others, love God. God is good. I measure everything by that.

 

So when I come to a verse that seems to say that God has chosen to condemn some people to eternal hell, I think about the fact that he is good. That means either a) there is some goodness in this election that I don't understand or b) I don't really understand what this verse is saying.

 

Next, I remember that I'm supposed to love God & love others. It seems offensive to me to tell people that they have been chosen by God to be eternally condemned to hell so that the rest of us will more greatly appreciate our salvation. *IF* that's true, telling them won't do any good anyway. If it's not, telling them is the worst kind of insult.

 

The kind of hope I'm describing is not rejecting the Bible, it's merely acknowledging my human ability to understand it. Sure, I see the verses that look like they mean some people are going to hell, whether it's because they weren't chosen or whether it's because they failed to submit themselves to Christ. And that could very well be.

 

It's just that I see another possibility, too. I'm not *expecting* that there's universal salvation or living a sinful life because I think free salvation (w/out repentance, etc.) is assured. Instead, I'm trying to follow the Lord even more because I see the blessing in doing so, because I am grateful for any salvation.

 

As far as evangelism, I do tell people about Jesus. I do tell them what he has done for them, but I do it because God is good. Not because I'm convinced they'll go to hell if I don't. Sure, it's possible. But generally, they already know that possibility is there. Satan's job is to condemn. He's the voice in our heads telling us that we're hopeless failures. When I witness to someone, I want to be a voice of hope. I want to share Good News. Kwim?

 

I'm not saying you should agree w/ me. I'm only saying that I don't think the Bible is *quite* as clear on the matter as you're suggesting. I partly take this stance because I don't like the "we never know what the state of a person's heart was when he died" line. I think that if we're going to tell people that if they don't accept the salvation Christ offers, they're going to hell, then we have to be able to say the same to a grieving person about a lost loved one. Since I'm not ready to do that, though, I go back to the scripture & I read again, & I wonder.

 

You're right. In the context I'm talking about, I mean hope as hope, not confidence. Ultimately, my confidence is in the Lord. Since we all have different ideas & different denominations, etc., I figure a good deal of us are wrong about a bunch of things. I'm bracing myself to take some hits when we find out the whole truth about everything, & since I'm in the minority on this point, I figure there are good odds that this will be one of the things he shakes his head at me for. Until I know for sure, though, I'm going to keep hoping. In the uncertain sense. :001_smile:

 

Thank you for sharing this Aubrey. It touched me deeply. :grouphug:

[Hapax Legomena]

I think the discrepancy seems to appear if you are defining "believe" as "Yes, in my mind I think that is true. I have experienced this and have come to the logical and rational conclusion that it is true." However, I think that the command to believe goes farther than this. Belief in God rests a great deal on faith, and therefore is not "rational" in every respect.

I see what you are saying, but I prefer to view it a bit differently.

When the Bible tells us to believe a proposition, we can understand the word in the same way we might say, “I believe two plus two are four.” When we make that statement we have no question as to whether we really believe it. There is no irrationality involved. We are merely stating our conviction about the merits of that particular truth claim.

In the same way, we say, “I believe Jesus died for my sin and rose again.” There is nothing irrational about that claim. Likewise, there is no irrationality in saying, “I have faith that Jesus died for my sin and rose again” or “I have faith in God.”

Every day we make choices that require faith. For example, we approach the curb of a busy street, look both ways, look again, and then walk into the road. At that point we are not acting irrationally, but we are acting in faith. We have observed the situation, made some calculations and concluded that it is safe to go.

At the same time, we must realize that we could get killed in doing so. We could get a cramp and fall to the pavement just as a speeding car comes around the corner. We really don’t know what will happen. Even so, we have made our choice, and the choice is a rational one grounded in fact.

In some aspects, yes, but not in all. If it were, faith would not be necessary. Therefore, belief must go beyond rationality. I think that when God tells us to believe, it means to come into an agreement with Him in regards to Truth (what we have been predestined to do) and then to act as if Truth is true. It involves not only the mind but also the heart (faith) and the body (action; evidences that what we now "believe" as true are indeed true).

The word “believe” does not include the things you have added to the simple definition. In fact, if we add action to it, we have changed the good news of the gospel. If our belief must be accompanied by action, the person who believes the gospel cannot really know whether he believes.

In other words, a person could say, “Now that you have explained who Jesus was and what He did, I believe that He died on the cross for my sin and rose again.” At that point, the friend could say, “Well, you don’t really know whether you believe or not. We won’t know until a few weeks or years until we see what kind of changes take place in your life.”

That situation is a psychological absurdity. It is also a misuse of language. The Greek word “believe” does not carry any of the extra baggage any more than the English word “believe.”

Using this second definition of belief, there is no contradiction. God can predestine* us to believe but, because of the war within us between the sinful flesh nature and the redeemed spiritual nature (which I have admitted in another post is an idea I am wrestling with at the moment - one day it makes sense, another it doesn't ) we do not always act like we believe (aka believe in our flesh)... we must purposefully work to believe in this way.

The problem is that this definition results in a total absence of assurance that you are a Christian. You have no way of knowing what you will do in the future. Perhaps you will say a sinful thing to someone or give a haughty look to a neighbor or watch a commercial on TV when you inwardly think you should be clicking the remote.

You will never know you are saved, because your definition of “belief” includes action.

In contrast, the Bible claims that we can know for sure we are going to heaven. It isn’t a mystery. Paul knew, and we can too. John wrote his gospel that we might know. The contemporary notion that we cannot know for sure or that our knowledge is based on our actions, is not biblical. It is a widespread notion, but not a biblical one.

Thanks again for your comments; I will probably let others use the bandwith from here on out. I merely had a few moments and wanted to comment on these truths because they highly important and widely misrepresented.

[Tutor]

I see what you are saying, but I prefer to view it a bit differently.

 

When the Bible tells us to believe a proposition, we can understand the word in the same way we might say, “I believe two plus two are four.” When we make that statement we have no question as to whether we really believe it. There is no irrationality involved. We are merely stating our conviction about the merits of that particular truth claim.

 

In the same way, we say, “I believe Jesus died for my sin and rose again.” There is nothing irrational about that claim. Likewise, there is no irrationality in saying, “I have faith that Jesus died for my sin and rose again” or “I have faith in God.”

 

Every day we make choices that require faith. For example, we approach the curb of a busy street, look both ways, look again, and then walk into the road. At that point we are not acting irrationally, but we are acting in faith. We have observed the situation, made some calculations and concluded that it is safe to go.

 

At the same time, we must realize that we could get killed in doing so. We could get a cramp and fall to the pavement just as a speeding car comes around the corner. We really don’t know what will happen. Even so, we have made our choice, and the choice is a rational one grounded in fact.

 

I did not say that it was irrational, I said that it was not purely rational. We are told to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. I am saying that many people's definition of "believe" is limited to the mind and ignores the heart, soul, and strength.

 

 

The word “believe” does not include the things you have added to the simple definition. In fact, if we add action to it, we have changed the good news of the gospel. If our belief must be accompanied by action, the person who believes the gospel cannot really know whether he believes.

 

In other words, a person could say, “Now that you have explained who Jesus was and what He did, I believe that He died on the cross for my sin and rose again.” At that point, the friend could say, “Well, you don’t really know whether you believe or not. We won’t know until a few weeks or years until we see what kind of changes take place in your life.”

 

That situation is a psychological absurdity. It is also a misuse of language. The Greek word “believe” does not carry any of the extra baggage any more than the English word “believe.”

 

Actually, I think the word "believe" in both the Greek and the English implies that one will act with their body what they believe with their mind. I believe with my mind that two plus two is four or that gravity keeps my feet on the ground. I also act as if two plus two is four. I do not go around explaining to everyone that the reason I am buying two pairs of yogurt cups is so that each of my four children may have one because two plus two equals four... I just buy them because I believe it to be true and act accordingly. (This probably isn't the best example, but I can't think of a better one right now.) All of my actions are linked to my beliefs. I was not saying that actions caused my belief or added validity to them. I am saying that certain actions flow naturally out of my belief.

 

If someone tells me that they believe in Christ for their salvation, I will take their word for it, but if they then act as if they act contradictory to this, I am going to be suspect about their salvation. I do not have any special ability to read God's thoughts. I have no idea who is elect and who is not. My only clues are what they profess and how they act. What I think about someone else's salvation does not effect their salvation. The Scriptures do tell us to judge people by their fruits and to constantly examine ourselves (Lamentations 3:39-41; 2Corinthians 13: 5-7; Matthew 7:15-23). Also, The Scripture itself ties action with faith. (James 2:14-26) The Scripture does not say that the works are faith or the element of salvation. That comes by the grace of Christ. But the Scripture, I think, is clear that works always accompany faith. It is the evidence that the faith exists. It is another facet of belief. It is not an absurdity at all.

 

 

The problem is that this definition results in a total absence of assurance that you are a Christian....

 

...You will never know you are saved, because your definition of “belief” includes action.

 

In contrast, the Bible claims that we can know for sure we are going to heaven. It isn’t a mystery. Paul knew, and we can too. John wrote his gospel that we might know. The contemporary notion that we cannot know for sure or that our knowledge is based on our actions, is not biblical. It is a widespread notion, but not a biblical one.

 

Where does the Bible say we can know for sure in this lifetime? It does say that those who believe will one day be with God in the new heaven and the new earth and will reign with Christ. There are many who will say "Lord, Lord" and He will say He never knew them. Only those who do the will of the Father. (Matthew 7:21-23) These people thought they knew, but they were wrong. Where does the Bible say that we can know here-and-now? I think the Bible clearly states that there are marks (fruits) of salvation that can be observed by ourselves and others as I have mentioned above. The Bible tells us definitively what qualifies a person as saved (being one of the chosen; belief; repentance). However, I am not certain that one can absolutely, positively know in this life that one is saved. Maybe someone can know, but I am not sure that the Bible is clear that everyone who is saved will know. So, you are right. My answer does not assume assurance of salvation, but I do not believe that an understanding of assurance is necessary for the defining of belief.

 

You have no way of knowing what you will do in the future. Perhaps you will say a sinful thing to someone or give a haughty look to a neighbor or watch a commercial on TV when you inwardly think you should be clicking the remote.

 

I am puzzled by this statement. I don't always know what I am going to do at any moment. Sometimes I think I know, but I act contrary to my own mind. Paul experienced the same thing (Romans 7:14-25). I am not sure what this has to do with assurance of salvation.

 

Thanks again for your comments; I will probably let others use the bandwith from here on out. I merely had a few moments and wanted to comment on these truths because they highly important and widely misrepresented.

 

Thank you for your input. I am always amazed at the many facets of Scripture and what others see that I do not (or I have refused to see :D ).

Edited January 29, 2009 by Tutor
stinkin' typos

[seanda]

Why would the Word of God tell us, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved," if this is not something we have control over.... if we are elect we will do so, whether or not we are instructed to, and if we are not elect we will not do so regardless of the instruction. I simply do not believe this is the logical interpretation of this and other verses.

 

I do believe God foreknew who would come to Him... but that we each have a choice... He knows the outcome of the choice and He weaves it all together for His purpose.... but why would God weep at the tragedy of the world if He created the tragedy deliberately? I don't believe He does create tragedy or people who He created to be unsaved. I believe He KNOWS that it will happen but does not necessarily want it to happen. He allows Satan in this world. He allows free will. And He allows us to reject Him.

 

How do you explain that God does not wish any would perish but all would have everlasting life? If He is in control of who is saved, as the Calvin doctrine states, and He wants everyone saved, then everyone would be saved. Then that Bible verse is a lie. OR He wants everyone to be saved but He allows free will, and therefore some do not choose Him... and He weeps and mourns over the lost sheep. Then the Bible verse makes sense.

 

And my view of belief is much more than the rational. He is telling us to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ... to follow Him... to love God with our heart, mind, soul, and strength. He tells us to do that... but He doesn't force us to. The entire story of salvation is one of free will in my opinion. From beginning to end, it is a beautiful love story. But love forced is not love. A robot designed to follow is not the same as someone who follows despite free will.

[Hapax Legomena]

Where does the Bible say we can know for sure in this lifetime?

This message appears throughout the New Testament. I’ll just mention a few instances. The Philippian jailor asked the question, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved.” Paul answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Then we read, “Believing, he rejoiced.”

Paul didn’t tell him that he had to repent or that he had to follow the Lord all of his days. The jailor merely believed. He knew that he had believed, and Luke tells us that fact.

Second, John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the world that he gave us His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Many people automatically assume that the word “so” refers to the extent of God’s love. Actually, it refers to the manner of His love. In other, words, God loved us in the “same way” as He loved the people in the prior verse.

Recall that the people who had been bitten by the poisonous serpents were going to die, but God provided a way for them to live. They merely had to look at the serpent that was raised up before them on the pole. If they looked, they would live. They didn’t need to make any other commitments to the Lord or repent.

John 3:16 tells us the same thing. God has provided a Savior, Jesus Christ. If people merely believe in Him they have everlasting life. To place any other requirements on the matter or to change the meaning of the word “believe” to include other conditions is to distort the simple gift God is offering.

John 3: 18 tells us, “He who believes on Him is not condemned.” The person who believes is the same person who has believed as described in John 3:16. The notion of “not condemned” necessarily includes not going to hell.

Third, The Ephesians were saved and knew it. Paul told them, “By grace you have been saved.” If nobody could know they were saved, Paul could not have made that statement.

Last, when Jesus talked to the woman at the well, He offered her living water. That water is the gift of God, eternal life. Jesus also remarked, He who drinks of this water shall never thirst again. The negative is very strong; we might say, “never ever” thirst again. The point is that when the woman received that gift, she could never receive it again because she would never be thirsty again. If she could have lost her salvation, she would have been thirsty again. However, the text tells us that it would be impossible for her to thirst again.

There are many other texts that teach these points. This simple gospel, the gift of God is the wonderful message of the Bible. It is a shame people miss it. It is an even greater shame that preachers obscure it. If pastors cannot clearly and accurately articulate the gospel, they ought to go into another line of work.

It does say that those who believe will one day be with God in the new heaven and the new earth and will reign with Christ. There are many who will say "Lord, Lord" and He will say He never knew them. Only those who do the will of the Father. (Matthew 7:21-23).

Yes, and what is the will of the Father?

These people thought they knew, but they were wrong. Where does the Bible say that we can know here-and-now? I think the Bible clearly states that there are marks (fruits) of salvation that can be observed by ourselves and others as I have mentioned above.

The verse just prior to the Matthew passage you quoted says: “Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them. Jesus is talking about the false prophets (Matt 7:15-20). What are those fruits?

The way we can tell if a person is a false prophet is by listening to what they say. A false prophet says false things. The fruit of their mouth condemns them.

That passage is usually taken out of context. However, Matthew touches on this subject again a few chapters later (Matt 12:33-37). In that section Jesus talks about good fruit and bad fruit. The entire section is about words. He concludes: “For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned” (12:37).

The Bible tells us definitively what qualifies a person as saved (being one of the chosen; belief; repentance).

The only qualification necessary to obtain everlasting life is believing that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again. Anyone who believes that truth has everlasting life. That is the simple message of 1 Cor. 15.

However, I am not certain that one can absolutely, positively know in this life that one is saved. Maybe someone can know, but I am not sure that the Bible is clear that everyone who is saved will know.

Every person can know whether they are saved. It is as simple as looking at the bronze serpent lifted up in the wilderness.

If we were in the wilderness on that particular day, and you were to ask someone, “Did you look at the bronze serpent on the pole,” that person would have been able to tell you whether or not they looked at it. When I ask you whether you believe you are married, you can tell me. You don’t have to wonder about it.

God did not make salvation so complicated that nobody can know they are saved. It is the devil who wishes to obscure the simplicity and grace of God’s truth.

So, you are right. My answer does not assume assurance of salvation, but I do not believe that an understanding of assurance is necessary for the defining of belief.

The reason I mentioned assurance is because of the connection between the assurance and the way people wrongly define “belief.” They weigh down the word with the concept of works. If you don’t do thus and so, you never really believed.

When they make that linguistic error, they have just made it impossible to know whether anyone is saved. Why? The reason we could not then know whether a person is saved, is because we would not know what they would do tomorrow or the next day. They might sin. If the sin were bad enough, they wouldn’t have been saved earlier, so the false view goes.

Thanks again for taking time to post your comments.

 

[Christy B]

 

. . . mainly because skepticism, doubt, and lack of certainty, are often looked down upon by the church, so others hide their questions and put on a good face, so I feel very alone in these times

 

 

You are so right . . . and I can assure you you're not alone.