When pressed, Calvinists have a very hard time explaining why they consider themselves among the Elect and not among those unfortunate souls brought into this world for no other reason than that the Sovereign God wanted to show how great and awesome He is by deciding from all eternity that He would be sending them to Hell.
John Calvin was not even sure about who is getting voted off the island. And so, when you point out to Calvinists that they make faith in their faith the ground of certainty for the salvation, they get a bit…exercised. But blame Calvin for the notion that it is finally our faith, not Christ crucified, that is our assurance of our election.
E.g., see Inst. IV, 1:2-3,8; 12:9; III, 21:2.
Also:
“The election of God is hidden and secret in itself . . . men are being fantastic or fanatical if they look for their salvation or for the salvation of others in the labyrinth of predestination instead of keeping to the way of the faith which is offered them . . . To each one, his faith is a sufficient witness of the eternal predestination of God, so that it would be a horrible sacrilege to seek higher assurance.”
(Commentary on John 6:40; in Francis Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, New York: Harper & Row, 1963, 270)
February 6th, 2010 | 7:08 pm | #1
It’s amusing to read this from Rev. McCain because I suggest there are three things he will either confess are true, or will have to confess he does not believe — and I think it would be enough for Joe to have to reconsider whether Rev. McCain should be posting here as a Christian at all.
Here are the three statements:
1. At the end of all things, some people will be condemned to hell forever. (cf. Rev 20)
2. All of those condemned to hell will be condemned for their own sins, their own record of guilt against God. (cf. Rom 1-2)
3. Christ’s death on the cross actually does remove all sin and guilt from those for whom it is made. (cf. Rom 8)
If he can affirm all three of these doctrinal statements, then I ask him to fully and immediately apologize for the stridently-offensive remarks he has just made against all Reformed-oriented Christians.
If he cannot affirm all three of these statements, I ask him to publicly deny the one(s) he thinks are false — at which point I will ask Joe to remove him from the masthead as a rank heretic.
February 6th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #2
Rev. McCain, I’ve enjoyed your writing here on Evangel, even on subjects where we would disagree.
This post was beneath you.
February 6th, 2010 | 7:33 pm | #3
Mr. Turk, yes, well, that’s all well and good, but would you care perhaps to take a stab at explaining how Mr. Calvin’s point supports your contention that in Calvinism, Christians are not pointed to their faith for their assurance that they are among the Elect?
his faith is a sufficient witness of the eternal predestination of God
Sure seems to me that this is what Calvin is saying. He does not urge people to look to the objective reality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, but rather, to seek assurance in the fact that they have faith.
No wonder there are more re-baptisms than baptisms of people who have never been baptized before in the Baptist church. If all you have to go on is your subjective perception of your state of faith, what a woeful condition that is.
The first Evangelicals however put it this way:
For God loved the world and gave His Son, John 3:16. Christ bore the sins of the world, John 1:29, gave His flesh for the life of the world, John 6:51; His blood is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 1:7; 2:2. Christ says: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matt. 11:28. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11:32. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him, Rom. 10:12. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:22. This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, John 6:40. Likewise it is Christ’s command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15.
We point people not to their faith, but always to their Savior and His powerful Word that creates what it offers, that gives what it promises, that does what it says it will do.
February 6th, 2010 | 7:40 pm | #4
Aha. Because the first Lutherans were what they were, no man may disagree.
I’ll be back later to untangle the whole of this. Notice, however, that Rev. McCain will not answer a direct question.
February 6th, 2010 | 7:58 pm | #5
“If all you have to go on is your subjective perception of your state of faith, what a woeful condition that is…” Whatever. Talking about tilting at windmills.
February 6th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #6
What Rev, McCain has heretofore not answered, is this:
What can you look to, that an unbeliever cannot also look to?
If a man cannot look to anything in himself (I am speaking ONLY of this “I believe”) thereby making belief and even repentance and faith of no account, why can the unbeliever not say “Jesus died for me. I don’t care, he was a jerk, but he died for me, so I guess I’m in.”
What can you tell that guy?
February 6th, 2010 | 9:32 pm | #7
“…his faith is a sufficient witness of the eternal predestination of God, so that it would be a horrible sacrilege to seek higher assurance.” -Calvin
“…Calvinists…make faith in their faith the ground of certainty for the salvation…” -McCain
“Faith in Christ’s work is the requirement for salvation and the witness that we are among the elect. This is not ‘faith in faith’, but faith in the promise that God has given that all who place faith in the work of Christ will be saved.” -Me
February 6th, 2010 | 10:14 pm | #8
Rev. McCain,
Your misreading and lack of charity towards Calvin’s comment is silly. Peter made the same mistake. You should correct him. “Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.”
Peter obviously should have said “the outcome of the atonement” or something. That faith business is too subjective and can’t help anyone be sure that they are elect.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:32 pm | #9
Rev. McCain,
Thank you for a good post. I’m not on board with all things Lutheran, but this is definitely a place where we agree. My mentors Bob and Gretchen Passantino are Lutheran and it is Bob especially who helped me walk away from Calvinism and into the light. I’m very thankful for Lutherans who do not hold to Calvinism because Calvinists often act as if Luther was a Calvinist.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:39 pm | #10
When pressed, Calvinists have a very hard time explaining why they consider themselves among the Elect and not among those unfortunate souls brought into this world for no other reason than that the Sovereign God wanted to show how great and awesome He is by deciding from all eternity that He would be sending them to Hell.
With all due respect Rev. McCain, this is simply not true. No Calvinist worth his salt would ever argue that our election is based in anything other than the freely given and unmerited-on-our-part grace of God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Now, if you ask “why did God chose me and not person X?” (and I suspect this is the question you’re getting at), then Calvinists have exactly the same answer as traditional Lutherans, and certainly the same answer as Luther himself: God elects whom He will. In other words, there’s nothing in us which we can look at and say “that faith decision/reordering of the will/reasonable conclusion/emotional experience/etc is the basis of my salvation.”
One of my favorite testamonies, if a bit exuberant for my Baptist tastes, makes this point well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYVO2-2ndg4
February 6th, 2010 | 11:13 pm | #11
Just so it doesn’t go unanswered, Rev. McCain said this:
Actually, I don’t think that’s the case at all — but to expect Rev. McCain at this point to deal honestly and fairly with “Calvinists” is a hopeless cause.
For the rest of you reading, here’s how one Calvinist (me) would answer this cat-call.
The word “ἐκλεκτός” occurs in the NT 23 times. It refers to the “elect” 16 times, and all of those are in reference to those God has chosen to save — for example, Mat 24:22. In the other 7 occurences, it speaks to those who were chosen — For example, Rev 17:14. In every case, the word is used to underscore the pre-eminence of God in the saving of those who will not be lost.
However, in every case, the writer is speaking of and to those who have faith in Christ. The context is not evangelism but instead encouragement to follow Christ to the end. For example, 1Pet 1:2 has Peter telling the churches under persecution they are “elect” so that they can grasp onto the hope that is in Christ — not to discourage unbelievers or narrow the scope of evangelism.
Another example is Col 3:12, where Paul is clear that because those in the church are elect, they should act like the unbreakable hope of Christ is real — and put on such things as love, patience, etc.
In that, there are two things utterly certain:
1. There are zero references in the NT where the unsaved are given the assurances that the saved are given. Those who are actually bought for a price have an unbreakable hope, and this hope is “election”.
2. Only those who do believe or will believe are referred to as “elect”.
In that, with Paul and Peter, I am unashamed to say that all who believe are the elect.
When Rev. McCain can offer any explanation for the use of the word “ἐκλεκτός” in the NT which is more plausible than this, he can continue his unhelpful ranting against Calvinism.
Wow. So we’re talking about the damnation of souls now with a glib “voted off the island” metaphor? It seems to me that there are no Calvinists who take this subject this tragically-lightly, but that those who need to heap scorn on Calvinism can take the loss of souls to sin this vacantly should re-assess their priorities.
That said, it should be expected that if Rev. McCain is going to use Calvin against Calvinists, he should use him credibly. Certainly: Calvin would never say that we can know who is and is not elect a priori; the problem, of course, is what else Calvin had to say about the elect. He says is plainly in Book Three, Chapter 22, section 2: “From giving them the name of elect, it is clear that [Paul] is addressing believers.” The elect are the believers.
What I’d like from Rev. McCain is a clear statement that when Paul and Peter and Jesus refer to “the elect”, they are not referring to the believers — and tell us who exactly they are referring to.
Well, because that’s a fantastic lie.
If the question is, “How do you know you are elect?” I can rightly say, “because the Scripture calls those with faith ‘the elect’.” Because, as I have already demonstrated, it does. What that does not do is transfer my faith in Christ to a “faith in faith”. It simply applies the terms and logic of the NT to the question asked.
But if by that question the “first evangelicals” mean “well, how do you know that you know that you know you are saved?” we should just laugh at them — because that formula is a disaster produced by revivalism and Charles Finney. I know I am saved because Christ died for my sin; that’s the definition of faith, not something I have faith in prior to or along side some other beliefs in Christ. There is no other knowledge: as Peter said, we should know for certain that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, and in that call upon Him that we may be saved.
Those who do this are saved; those who do this are called “the elect” by Paul and Peter and Jesus. For some other person to demean those terms, and call that logic a “faith in faith” is simply reprehensible.
Well, see above. At some point Rev. McCain is going to have to open the NT and deal with the Apostolic use of the category “the elect”, and we’ll all see how he thinks the word is used and what it means.
I quoted Institutes III, 21:2, above, but for the reader’s sake here’s IV 1:2 which Rev. McCain is referencing:
When in the Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God, including in the number even those who have departed this life. And, accordingly, the word used is “believe”, because oftentimes no difference can be observed between the children of God and the profane, between his proper flock and the untamed herd.
Plainly, Calvin is saying that those who “believe” are rightly considered to be those who are “elect”. This is how we should understand the visible definition of who the elect are: those who believe in Christ.
Who would say otherwise? Name the person. I’d like Rev. McCain himself to say otherwise — that we should not call those who believe “the elect”. If he would, we’d learn a lot more about his intention.
One should compare this to Col 2 and 3. Paul’s premise is this in Col 2:
Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.
The basis of his joy in them is their faith in Christ — not merely the objective fact of Christ in the world. And their faith in Christ is how they have received Him, and are established in Him.
Therefore in Col 3 he says:
Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.
Paul calls those who have believed the elect. Whatever he means by that, his way of getting there is clear: if you have believed, and you have repented, you are the elect, therefore put on the character of the elect.
Rev. McCain would call this faith in faith. Paul calls this making Christ all in all, and doing what those with faith will do.
You readers are smart enough to see which you should believe. Rev. McCain’s slanders can’t overturn what the Scripture actually says.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:46 pm | #12
Rev. McCain also said this:
Notice Rev. McCain cannot answer the question posed to him. If he did, he’d find himself having to repeal the lot of his complaints. At some point, though, he should be honest that he has no answers to the questions being put to him rather than simply shrugging his shoulders and then dumping more accusations into the bandwidth.
Done — done in my last response to you here. This statement is a phony representation of a reformed view of this question, and I have answered it thoroughly, above.
The problem is that you are mixing categories, Rev. McCain — and at this point, I suspect it is a conscious effort and not merely a lack of understanding.
Consider the example I gave from Col 2-3 previously. Doesn’t Paul say that one’s faith is ground enough to therefore take on the consequences of election? Calvin says exactly the same thing for exactly the same purpose — not to say that faith is the thing which saves us, but to say that by having faith in Christ, and in knowing Christ’s election brought us to faith, we can then have the hope which the elect ought to have and be the new men which election ought to make us.
Your irresponsible use of Calvin, and your complete lack of engagement on the question of what the NT means when it refers to “the elect”, leaves your complaint unwholesome at best.
Since baptizing babies is not the baptism described in the New Testament, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
It’s funny how many times the idea of coming to the Lord is expressed here. Why come if it’s done already, pray tell? Why the commands to believe? I’ll bet it’s a mystery.
This is, again, the part that’s really reprehensible — because of course one should not be pointed “to their faith” but in fact “to faith in Christ” — that is, they should have some correspondence to Christ. With all the hoopla in “the first evangelicals” pointing out that men ought to believe, ought to come, ought to repent, you’d think Rev. McCain could see that this is exactly the same thing Calvinism does, because for we who believe in Jesus Christ and live under His guardianship have also become lords ourselves over the devil, sin, death, etc. In order that such lordship might be ours, He was made man for our sake. He appealed to the Father on [] behalf [of we who believe] and so loves us in this way: He was condemned, offering Himself up for [the] sakes [of we who believe]. With His precious blood He purchased [we who believe] and washed [we who believe] clean from sin. Still more He has placed in our hearts the Holy Spirit, the pledge of our inheritance and blessedness, making us kings and priests for God and joint heirs with Himself. This is most certainly true.
Martin Luther believed that — why doesn’t Rev. McCain believe that?
February 7th, 2010 | 12:04 am | #13
Martin Luther was no advocate of the false doctrine of limited atonement. Anyone who represents him as such is either woefully ignorant or patently dishonest.
While preaching on John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”, Martin Luther beautifully states the importance of the universal Gospel. He says, “This is an extraordinarily fine and comforting sermon on Christ our Savior. Neither our thoughts nor our words can do the subject full justice, but in the life beyond it will redound to our eternal joy and bliss that the Son of God abased himself so and burdened himself with my sins. Yes, he assumes not only my sins but also those of the whole world, from Adam down to the very last mortal. These sins he takes upon himself; for these he is willing to suffer and die that our sins may be expunged and we may attain eternal life and blessedness… This is the basis of all Christian doctrine. Whoever believes it is a Christian; whoever does not is no Christian, and will get what he has coming to him. The statement is clear enough: “This is the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world.” Moreover, this text is the Word of God, not our word. Nor is it our invention that the Lamb was sacrificed by God and that, in obedience to the Father, this Lamb took upon himself the sin of the whole world. But the world refuses to believe this; it does not want to concede the honor to this dear Lamb that our salvation depends entirely on his bearing our sin. The world insists on playing a role in this too, but the more it aspires to do in atonement for sin, the worse it fares.”
Luther continues, “For the Lamb itself preaches to us, ‘Behold how I bear your sins!’ However, no one will accept it. If we believed and accepted it, no one would be damned. What more is the Lamb to do? He says, ‘You are all condemned, but I will take your sins upon myself. I have become the whole world. I have incorporated all people since Adam into my person.’ Thus he wants to give us righteousness in exchange for the sins we have received from Adam. And I should reply, ‘I will believe that, my dear, dear Lord, the Lamb of God, has taken all sins upon himself.’ Still the world will not believe and accept this. If it did, no one would be lost… Refusal to believe this is not Christ’s fault, it is mine. If I do not believe this, I am doomed. It is for me to say simply that the Lamb of God has borne the sin of the world. I have been earnestly commanded to believe and confess this, and then also to die in this faith. You may say, ‘Who knows whether Christ also bore my sin? I have no doubt that he bore the sin of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints; these were pious people, O that I were like St. Peter or St. Paul.’ Don’t you hear what St. John says in our text: ‘This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’ And you cannot deny that you are also a part of this world.’ For if you are in the world, and your sins form a part of the sins of the world, then the text applies to you.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, pp. 162-169)
February 7th, 2010 | 12:20 am | #14
It never ceases to amaze me how hard Calvinists have to work, and want to work, to limit the atonement of Christ, to prove that God really doesn’t love the world so much He sent his son to be the lamb of God, to bear the sins of the whole world.
It has not dawned on them that we should preach the Gospel so clearly and so sweetly that we need never even mention the word “faith.”
And the extent to which that reality is not understood by Mr. Turk and other amateur Internet apologists is the extent to which they have yet to understand the Gospel.
Faith is not the Gospel. Faith is not the Good News. Faith is merely the means by which individuals appropriate the good news for themselves personally.
Because the heart and center of their theological system is something other than Christ crucified for the sins of the world, but rather very much a focus on their faith, their response, their belief, you can understand why it is that in the Baptist church and other such denominations people are urged constantly to be “making a decision for Jesus.”
Calvinists can not even honestly preach the Gospel. When they preach to people and say, “Christ died for you” they always have to make this assertion with the mental reservation, “That is, of course, if you are one of the people God did in fact decide to predestine to salvation. But maybe you are not. Maybe you are one of the persons God has created in order to destroy in hell, to show forth His glory.” That’s not the Gospel Paul preached, or Peter, or Luther, but it is the Gospel of John Calvin, et al.
When all you have to rest your security and confidence on is your decision, or faith, or some internal evidence of faith in Jesus, then that’s the result: an endless search for security.
When all the while it is found where it always is: in Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world. That is why I know he took my sins away.
February 7th, 2010 | 12:30 am | #15
McCain said
Can you point out which Calvinist made these admissions in this thread? Who has argued for these positions?
What Frank has done is answer McCain concerning “faith” on the grounds which McCain objected against Calvinism. Now, however, McCain is shifting the goal posts and making new charges against Calvinism rather than answering the replies.
IMO, the most ironic thing is the amount of Scripture Frank has answered with that has gotten no response thus far.
Hope that helps! :)
February 7th, 2010 | 12:42 am | #16
Rev. McCain,
At some point, the “you just don’t get it” epithet fits. If your last salvo is what you got out of reading Frank’s response, I’m afraid you’re going to have to wear it.
You didn’t respond to a single point the guy made.
February 7th, 2010 | 12:48 am | #17
Paul, I’ve appreciated your contributions here and in my time of difficulty have greatly benefited from much of what you have shared and have found much comfort from Luther and others in the Lutheran tradition. Recently I have been telling many of my Presbyterian friends that they need to do more reading in the Lutheran tradition as Lutherans sometimes do a better job of expressing the same things we believe than we do. I also have greatly appreciated your prayers for me.
But I am with Jeff Schultz on this one – this was beneath you. I’m dumbfounded that you would make the charges you have made. As one who has been firmly entrenched in the Calvinistic tradition for some time now I have found that, in general, Calvinists have stood firmly against Finneyism and the revivalistic tradition that grounds our assurance in subjective experience, rather than the objective historical realities of Christ’s work on our behalf.
I was a bit worked up reading this post so I did a simple google search on “Calvin on Assurance” and the first hit I got was a .pdf of an article in Vox Evangelical called “Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance” – http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol11/calvin_lane.pdf.
Granted I didn’t read it thoroughly, I just did a bit of quote mining which I understand is not the best way of doing research, but just a bit of quote mining offers enough to convince the most casual observer that Calvin’s doctrine of assurance is far more nuanced than you suggest. Here’s just a few quotes from my fly-by of that article. This from Calvin:
“In one word, he only is a true believer who, firmly persuaded that God is reconciled, and is a kind Father to him, hopes everything from his kindness, who, trusting to the promises of the divine favour, with undoubting confidence anticipates salvation; … none hope well in the Lord save those who confidently glory in being the heirs of the heavenly kingdom… the goodness of God is not property comprehended when security does not follow as its fruit.”
Note that the hope is not in one’s faith, it is in God’s activity. The next one is an extended quote from Lane, the author of the article:
“Many Christians seek assurance from their good works, from the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives.22 Calvin firmly opposed any such attempt to base our assurance on something within ourselves. He observed that our works and the state of our hearts always fall short of perfection. ‘For there is nowhere such a fear of God as can give full security, and the saints are always conscious that any integrity which they may possess is mingled with many remains of the flesh.’23 Any attempt to base assurance on such works is doomed to failure since the tender conscience will soon see the inadequacy of the foundation. ‘Conscience derives from them [works] more fear and alarm than security.’24 If we maintain assurance on such a basis it shows that we do not recognise our own imperfection and opens the door to self-trust.”
Again, note that Calvin is adamant that the assurance of our election is not anything in ourselves. Further,
“Calvin recognised that our works can strengthen or confirm our confidence, as evidences of God’s work in us, and that they are a test of the genuineness of faith. But once they become the primary ground of assurance a de facto justification by works has been introduced which will lead either to despair or to a false self-confidence. Assurance is not to be based on anything in ourselves. To base it on good works is to live according to the doctrine of justification by works whatever one may profess with one’s lips.29″
Still further,
How does the Christian know that God is his gracious Father? By believing the Gospel. The evidence of our election is God’s effectual calling of us, issuing in our faith.39 It might therefore appear that for Calvin the ground of assurance is our faith. But this would be seriously to distort his teaching.40 It would be to suggest that assurance is after all based on something in ourselves, which Calvin denied. ‘If you look to yourself damnation is certain.’41 It would be to make faith the condition of salvation in the sense of something which we must do in order to achieve salvation. This Calvin also denied.42 Assurance would not be secure if it were based on our faith since our faith is always such that we need to pray ‘Lord, help our unbelief’.43 ‘In all men faith is always mingled with incredulity.’44 To base assurance on our faith opens the door to introspection and leads to agonizing doubts concerning the genuineness of our faith.”
I don’t offer this as the final word as the doctrine of assurance has been debated widely within the reformed tradition, in fact there are some nuanced differences between Calvin and the Westminster tradition to which I subscribe. I simply wanted to point out that ten minutes with google would have saved you from this gross misrepresentation of Calvin’s position.
I think all of us here appreciate a collegial debate here but I am dumbfounded about what you were trying to accomplish with this post. I know that it is common amongst Calvinists to accuse Lutherans of being antinomian – I happen to think otherwise. I also disagree with what I understand the Lutheran view of sacraments to be. But were I to raise either of these issues here on Evangel I would raise them as questions not accusations, as you have done here. I also would assume that my knowledge of traditions not my own is limited so I would be careful to tell others what they believe. So again, why are you trying to pick a fight with your friends here, and a fight based on misinformation.
February 7th, 2010 | 1:08 am | #18
Rev. McCain, I have never told anyone I witnessed to that Christ died for them. I have always said that God calls all men to repentance and that only way to attain salvation is call upon Jesus as the sacrificial propitiation for your sin. Notice that faith is not anywhere in there.
I have confidence before God because I believe that Christ’s death covered my sins. And I know that his death covers my sin because anyone who believes that is saved. Faith is a result of, not the producer, of salvation. So faith is one evidence of my salvation that I can point to.
Also, could you please respond to Mr. Turk’s original 3 points in his first comment?
February 7th, 2010 | 1:47 am | #19
Cameron,
Can all men repent? If so, is that enough for their salvation? If not, why does God call them all to repentance?
February 7th, 2010 | 2:27 am | #20
God calls all men to repent (2 Peter 3:9), but that we are incapable to repent without faith; Romans 14:23 makes it clear that without faith (belief) we can do no good.
Faith (belief) is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).
So to answer your question, while all men are called to repent, only those who God was sovereignly elected and granted faith can repent.
Repentance is enough for salvation in the sense that it is the reaction the election are moved when they are saved.
All peoples are called to salvation because all people are called to do good and the only way they can do good is by becoming right with God. God does this to establish his justness and glory, not to redeem all people.
February 7th, 2010 | 3:06 am | #21
Cameron,
Let me sum this up, then. God calls ALL people to do what only SOME people can do.
Got it. Wow, God is confusing.
February 7th, 2010 | 7:21 am | #22
David, I spent only ten seconds on the Internet and found volumes of evidence that “assurance of salvation” is indeed a burning issue in Calvinism and it is precisely the doctrine of double-predestination that leads so many to doubt their salvation and seek assurance where Scripture would not have them look. Not that there was any question in my mind that this was the case. Calvinists have been struggling with one of the most bitter consequences of the doctrine of double-predestination since the idea was put forward as a Biblical notion, which it is not.
For example, note the following remarks:
John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress has blessed multitudes of Christians, but his spiritual autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, is disturbing. He recounts how, in his seemingly endless search for assurance of salvation, he was haunted by the question, “How can I tell if I am elected?” William Perkins (1558-1602), is often called the Father of Puritanism. Perkins wrote extensively and almost exclusively on the subject of assurance, having devoted 2500 pages to the topic. Unfortunately, the preaching and teaching of Perkins on assurance often had the opposite affect, creating more doubts than were resolved. Ironically, Perkins, like so many other Puritans of his day, died without a clear assurance of his own salvation. For years, many Calvinist/Puritans in the Scottish Highlands have refused to receive the communion elements because of the lack of personal assurance of their salvation. Although believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior and the Son of God, self-examination fails to yield sufficient evidence of their election to salvation. Fearing that apart from such assurance they may eat and drink in an unworthy manner, and thereby incur the judgment of God, they abstain from receiving the Lord’s Supper. How tragic!
Even in an article that contains very fine statements about Calvin pointing us to Christ, there comes this stark reality of Calvin’s system:
Calvin says the elect alone come to “be ravished and wholly kindled to love God”; they are “borne up to heaven itself” and “admitted to the most hidden treasures of God.” “The Spirit, strictly speaking, seals forgiveness of sins in the elect alone, so that they apply it by special faith to their own use.” The elect alone come to know special faith and a special inward testimony. Source
There is a long history of Calvinists looking within their lives for assurance of their election. And, frankly, your brief remark about “nuances” between Calvinist confessions does not adequately capture the extent of the problem.
It only takes but a very few minutes to understand that “assurance of salvation” remains a burning point of debate.
Why do I raise this point here on Evangel? Simply to let the record show, in light of previous comments on another post, that “Evangelicalism” is by no means to be understood to be some kind of lock-step body of belief, but that facing American Evangelicals is a considerable amount of confusion and controversy over key points of the Gospel itself. Calvinists want very much to keep painting a picture which would lead people to think that Luther and Calvin were all but the same in their sentiments, perspectives, and outlook, when in fact there remain deep and significant differences.
February 7th, 2010 | 7:46 am | #23
Never thought I’d live to hear a Lutheran pastor saying:
‘It has not dawned on them that we should preach the Gospel so clearly and so sweetly that we need never even mention the word “faith.”’
The just shall live by. . . what was that again?
February 7th, 2010 | 7:52 am | #24
As for why I will not respond to Mr. Turk’s churlish first comment in this stream, the reason is simple. I will gladly grant Mr. Turk the right to have his little temper-tantrum, but I see no point in responding to it. Let him have his little rant and let him roar. The fact that Mr. Turk got himself into such a lather points to the reality that there is a serious weakness in the “system” of Calvinism, upon which so much depends.
I’m content to let the Biblical passages cited speak for themselves. I do not regard them as in need of the kind of nuanced parsing required to make them say the opposite of what they actually do assert.
Mr. Turk is free to continue his questioning of my Christianity and to suggest I may be a heretic. But simply because he has chosen to climb down into the mud pit and start slinging it around, does not mean I have any obligation to join him there.
It is important however for people to know that the EVANGEL blog here on FIRST THINGS is not simply another franchise for the Truly Reformed Watchblogging community. They probably find that frustrating.
February 7th, 2010 | 8:06 am | #25
We have to be very careful to make clear that faith is the means by which the individual appropriates unto Himself, by God’s gracious work alone, the objectively true reality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It is this objective truth upon which Faith rests.
Here’s the point:
A preacher must be able to preach a sermon on faith without ever using the term faith. It is not important that he din (shout) the word faith into the ears of his audience, but it is necessary for him to frame his address so as to arouse in every poor sinner the desire to lay the burden of his sins at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ and say to Him: “Thou art mine, and I am Thine.” Here is where Luther reveals his true greatness. He rarely appeals to his hearers to believe, but he preaches concerning the work of Christ, salvation by grace, and the riches of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ in such a manner that the hearers get the impression that all they have to do is to take what is being offered them and find a resting-place in the lap of divine grace.
Walther: Law and Gospel, p. 260.
February 7th, 2010 | 8:08 am | #26
@Cameron: Thanks for your candor.
If you have never told a person that Christ died for them, then, tragically, you have not proclaimed the Gospel to anyone, but only a distortion of it. I do not deny that the Holy Spirit can still work through our weaknesses, but this is a grave error and I urge you to reconsider your position.
February 7th, 2010 | 8:20 am | #27
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHA!
Oh wow — I was the one calling Rev. McCain a heretic! I started it!
What a blessing to get such a laugh on Sunday morning.
My point in my first post in this thread was to point out that, unquestionably, Rev. McCain believes in a limited atonement. If he believes that any soul goes to hell, he believes that Christ’s work didn’t work for that person.
I’m actually banking on Rev. McCain’s plain orthodoxy to to make my point. The likelihood of him rejecting any of the three points is almost nil.
But he can’t simply admit they are all true — because if he does, his rants against Calvinism are suddenly ruined.
However, here’s an opportunity for, um, redemption for Rev. McCain: let him repudiate Stuart’s claim the all Calvinists are heretics. Let him take the high road and repudiate the statement that Calvinism is damnably false. If he does, I will immediately apologize for haraguing him — on the front page, no less, and not buried here in the comments.
But if he will not do even that much, let’s be honest: he is only hurting himself at this point. His statements are simply the last bit of Lutheran jealousy over the fact that while they may have been the first evangelicals, they were not the last, and certainly not the best in either evangelism or systematics.
Have a great Lord’s day all. See you Monday.
February 7th, 2010 | 8:25 am | #28
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ–this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
(Acts 2:36-39 NASB)
This, I’m assuming, pretty much covers a good gospel presentation (taking into context what Peter preached immediately beforehand). And I think it says much about the things we’re arguing about, right?
Without parsing it up and down, Peter says, “The promise is for you and for as many as the Lord calls.”
February 7th, 2010 | 9:46 am | #29
It is important however for people to know that the EVANGEL blog here on FIRST THINGS is not simply another franchise for the Truly Reformed Watchblogging community. They probably find that frustrating.
No, most of us who are not TR actually think this blog has become part of the Truly Lutheran Franchise, but thats mostly because many of the other bloggers have abandoned posting here and you have filled the void
February 7th, 2010 | 10:03 am | #30
I’m outside of the saloon on this one, watching the gunfight through the swinging doors, but I have to say that when you clear out the smoke Rev. McCain’s point still remains standing. There is always an elephant in the barroom when Calvinism is being defended with both barrels. The elephant was put by one commenter this way:
So to answer your question, while all men are called to repent, only those who God has sovereignly elected and granted faith can repent.
Those of us not caught up in Calvinism see this as a falsehood that maligns the character of the God of the Bible, and as a result I worry about what this system does to people. Someone who is smart and zealous, but who has committed himself to defending this dogma at all costs, can too often descend into eruptive and oddly disjointed comments. There has to be inner pain involved in this, and that’s saddening.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #31
Frank,
Just for the record, I have never said that “all Calvinists are heretics”, but I have and will continue to say that anyone who cannot tell a fellow human being that Christ suffered and died for their sins personally does not have the one and only true saving Gospel.
It is important to point out that there are still true and sincere Christians in many of the Calvinistic churches. But this is not due to her terrible doctrines, but to the Gospel itself, which is still believed by some as a result of what the Lutheran theologians called “a blessed inconsistency”. While Calvinism officially condemns the universal atonement of Christ and thereby destroys the objective proclamation of the Gospel, many within Calvinism in their simplicity assume a universal atonement and fall back upon the true and saving Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins”. I say this, not to commend Calvinism in any way, but to commend the grace of God which often over-rules to the salvation of souls. A most interesting example of this is with Calvin himself, who though he did not explicitly teach a limited atonement, certainly opened the door for this error with his theology for his successors. But on his death bed, Calvin exhibited this “blessed inconsistency” in his own Last Will and Testament. He writes, “With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which He has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of His death and passion, that in this way He might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from His remembrance. I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, p. 829).
I hope you and everyone else can understand my heart in this matter. I myself was once a Calvinist, and even advanced above many of my fellows in Calvinism. I read Calvinist books, studied at a Calvinist seminary, and commended Calvinism to my congregation. I was convinced that it was the truest expression of Biblical Christianity. But God was gracious to show me that I was wrong. And now I am eager to show other Calvinists the error of this way, and to bring them into the orthodox Lutheran faith, that “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). I don’t seek their hurt, but rather their welfare. As Paul said, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (Rom. 10:1). Martin Luther expresses these same sentiments in a wonderful comment on Psalm 45:3, “Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.” He writes, “Our King does not strike in order to destroy men but in order to save them. So I fight against Carlstadt, Zwingli, and others, because I would rather have them live than die and come to naught. We injure not in order to damn men, but in order to heal them; as Christ said (Luke 9:56; John 12:47), ‘I have come not to destroy the world but in order that it may live.’ Thus our sword sets forth the Word of salvation, life, and righteousness, and it attempts to bring people back to the right way.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 12, p. 218).
February 7th, 2010 | 10:27 am | #32
This is getting better. I am ordering popcorn.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:07 am | #33
Rev. McCain: “Simply to let the record show, in light of previous comments on another post, that “Evangelicalism” is by no means to be understood to be some kind of lock-step body of belief, but that facing American Evangelicals is a considerable amount of confusion and controversy over key points of the Gospel itself.”
Unfortunately, this is an undeniably true statement.
In view of conservative Protestant complaints about other Trinitarian churches confusing the Gospel, this is a log in the eye.
Stuart: “It is important to point out that there are still true and sincere Christians in many of the Calvinistic churches. But this is not due to her terrible doctrines, but to the Gospel itself, which is still believed by some as a result of what the Lutheran theologians called “a blessed inconsistency”.
Thank you.
Some Calvinists (such as myself) say things in the reverse:
“It is important to point out that there are still true and sincere Christians in many of the non-Calvinistic churches, churches such as Lutherans, Wesleyans, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:25 am | #34
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
— Jesus Christ
His body was broken, and His blood shed for us who would receive Him as Savior and King.
He died for all men, but ultimately not all men will receive Him.
What a sorrowful day it will be for those who have rejected His sacrifice on their behalf.
Oh but what a glorious day it will be for those who would have made Him their treasure. For He will raise them up to a new life, and He will impart eternal life to us, His brethren.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:37 am | #35
OrthoDJ: “Where am I wrong about Calvinism? I’ve studied it up and down. I was a Calvinist myself. Early in my Christian walk I was very much into R.C. Sproul. I’ve had friends who were hard-core Calvinists and none of them ever accused me of not understanding it. Thankfully a couple of them left Calvinism.”
Stuart: “I myself was once a Calvinist, and even advanced above many of my fellows in Calvinism. I read Calvinist books, studied at a Calvinist seminary, and commended Calvinism to my congregation. I was convinced that it was the truest expression of Biblical Christianity. But God was gracious to show me that I was wrong. And now I am eager to show other Calvinists the error of this way, and to bring them into the orthodox Lutheran faith”
Thanks guys for this background. It’s good background to know.
But let me offer this as food for thought:
(1) Suppose a former Lutheran offered the same background as you did, except that s/he said that they left Lutheranism for Calvinism, being a cradle Lutheran, attending Concordia, persuading others to be Lutherans, etc…, but ultimately changing over to Calvinism? What would you say then?
Would you say that he didn’t properly understand Lutheranism? If so, why then wouldn’t a Calvinist say that to you… that you both didn’t understand Calvinism?
(2) Suppose an atheist offered a background that he was formerly a longtime Christian, saved and baptized as a Lutheran or Calvinist as college student, became an ordained clergy, evangelized many folks to become Christians, but then recently deconverted to rank atheism.
Would you say that he didn’t properly understand what it means to be a disciple of Christ and who Christ is and what Christ did for him? Because if he did, then he wouldn’t have deconverted.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:54 am | #36
Truth Unites,
Your argument is basically that everything is subjective and relative to one’s own experience. This is the same argument that non-Christians use against Christians when we say that Christ is the only way. I do not agree with that argument. John records, “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed (true, genuine disciples); And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31,32).
I do not believe that the issue is that I don’t understand Calvinism. If it is, then bear witness to a specific misunderstanding. I was myself a Calvinist zealot, graduating at the top of my seminary class and preaching and teaching Calvinism to others for over ten years. I taught Calvinism for several years at Grace Community Church under John MacArthur. I was never an Arminian, and still despise their errors. All I can tell you is that I have squarely stood on both sides of the aisle, and know with certainty of that which I speak. I hope that you and others will seriously consider the weight of this testimony. God doesn’t give too many like it.
February 7th, 2010 | 12:38 pm | #37
Good afternoon,
Well, I can’t spend too much time blogging this week and I’ve only read about half of the comments on Mr. Turk’s related article, but I have a couple more observations.
The title of Reverend McCain’s article is about false doctrine (not about the reality of lost souls, as some complain). It is catchy, clever and right on point as to a primary issue in this discussion that has evolved over the last few days. What assurance do we have that we are saved? Mr. Turk and some others have insisted that Calvin did not confess that faith is the assurance of election. In favor of addressing the actual assertions documented on this blog by Mr. Turk and others, I’m going to defer engaging the whole brand of Calvinism at this time. Mr. Turk has stringently defended his perceived duty to assert that faith can be relied upon as assurance of election to salvation.
Mr. Turk said this:
–“If the question is, ‘How do you know you are elect?’ I can rightly say, “because the Scripture calls those with faith ‘the elect’.”
In the title to this article, Reverend McCain alludes to the mistake some people make by approaching assurance of their own election to salvation as if it were supposed to be in the realm of a “secret”; something you have to try to figure out. Well, an individual’s assurance of his or her own election is not supposed to be a secret (it is merely the election of those other than yourself that is hidden from your certainty.) For those who resort to primarily using dry, logical deduction in order to find a mark of your own election, my question is, “Why do you need to do it this way?” No one would deny that through logic, one can connect the dots and deduce that an elected person will have faith, but then on top of that, you have to find more reassurance that you really know what “faith” looks like, how much is enough (1%, 20%, 51%?), whether you’ve lost it today, etc, in order for it to be a reliable mark of election for you. Again, I ask, why would anyone need to do this when a far superior and more reliable mark of election is that God promises you, in His Word, that Christ atoned for your sins (for the sins of the world). Personally, I would rather rely on the power of God’s absolute promise based on the work of His perfect Son than on my own determination of whether I have a qualifying, sufficient faith, but I guess I can only speak for myself.
Mr. Turk also said this:
–“Rev. McCain asked a reasonable question:
Mr. Turk, would you please offer your defense of your assertion that Christ was crucified only for those who would believe? Would you like to retract that assertion and rephrase?
I would never retract or rephrase that.”
Mr. Turk cites examples of the Apostles telling church congregations, for the purposes of their encouragement and discipline, that they are “elect”. No problem with that but that is quite different than Mr. Turk’s instruction, on a public blog site, that Christ was crucified only for those who would believe. There is a big difference between these two messages. Mr. Turk has stringently defended his perceived duty to assert to a public blog audience that Christ’s atoning sacrifice is limited, and more specifically he has defended his assertion that “Christ was crucified only for those who would believe.” (See Comment #128 on “Real Life” article.)
Consider this simple hypothetical: A friend of yours puts his heart and soul into buying a special gift for you and then he presents it to you. For whatever reasons, you reject it; you refuse to take possession of it. Question: Did the friend buy the gift for you?
Here is my point: The objective fact that your friend bought the gift for you is not contingent on whether the gift is rejected. Rejected or not, he still bought the gift for you and you were given fair opportunity to take possession of it. No one has a right to say your friend didn’t buy the gift for you just because you rejected it. He did buy it for you.
A person who is in a state of unbelief has rejected the gift of forgiveness God bought for him through Christ’s crucifixion, but that does not change the fact that God bought the gift for him through Christ’s crucifixion. Mr. Turk’s citations and examples of unbelievers who have rejected the gift of forgiveness don’t even come close to reasonable support of his assertion that “Christ was crucified only for those who would believe.” Some will reject the gift of Christ’s crucifixion for them, but that does not change the fact that Christ was crucified for all.
Mr. Turk expressed the idea of God buying people for a price. Well, even if you were to look at it that way, the same reasoning applies. The fact that some reject Christ as their Lord and don’t end up with God in heaven doesn’t mean God did not pay the price, by Christ’s crucifixion, for everyone He has created. Christ was crucified for all.
One other thing Mr. Turk said is this:
–“. . . the unbeliever is naturally unholy”
Due to original sin, everyone is inherently unholy and separated from Christ (“by nature children of wrath”) until the Holy Spirit works faith in him. Eph 2:3, Ps 51:5. [Debates on the doctrine of original sin are probably best suited to a separate discussion at another time.]
That’s it for now.
February 7th, 2010 | 12:39 pm | #38
“Truth Unites,
Your argument is basically that everything is subjective and relative to one’s own experience.”
How you could take my comment in #35 to this summary is just utterly ridiculous.
February 7th, 2010 | 1:19 pm | #39
Truth Unites,
It looks like we just talk a different language (1 John 4:6).
February 7th, 2010 | 1:38 pm | #40
As a Reformed Christian I confess that my confidence is not in my own faith but in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross for my sins. If my salvation rested on my own faith, I would surely be lost. This is where the church comes in. When my faith is weak, as it sometimes is, I still attend the church’s liturgy and recite the creed with my fellow believers. Because I am part of the church of Jesus Christ, the confession of faith that she recites each week, or even every day, is nevertheless still my own, even when I feel myself to be weak and to harbour doubts. Many North American evangelicals have a tendency to downplay the corporate character of the church and to focus too much on the faith of the individual believer. But God has elected a people for himself, which is the church of Jesus Christ. In so far as we are members of this church, we are heirs of God’s saving grace. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Although I have written in favour of the preeminence of psalm-singing in the liturgy, I will end with Edward Mote’s famous hymn that nicely expresses what I’ve just written, especially if the first-person-singular pronouns are changed to plural:
February 7th, 2010 | 1:56 pm | #41
Thanks be to God, and Amen.
I’m wondering though about your comment “once-for-all sacrifice” of Christ. I take it then you do not hold to Limited Atonement, or did you use the word “all” in a temporal sense?
February 7th, 2010 | 2:32 pm | #42
I can’t help but notice, that in all this discussion, the Reverend still won’t say what his security is, in a way that a non-believer can’t.
He did say (or something to this effect) “The Bible says that Jesus died for my sins.”
But, of course, believing that He died for every person who ever lived, means that everyone can say that.
So what is your security? But make sure you answer making no mention of you or what you belief or trust in, and recognizing that appealing to the Bible alone leaves you bringing all the unrepentant ones into the kingdom.
I really don’t want to drag this thread out forever, but it seems that the one laying charges should at least have a valid answer himself.
February 7th, 2010 | 2:33 pm | #43
Oh, and another, Reverend. Once-for-all, is a common English saying, meaning once-for-all-time…and in that case, all really does mean all.
February 7th, 2010 | 2:43 pm | #44
Daryl, I know it is hard to keep up, but I answered that question already. I’m happy to provide an answer again.
I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, in order that I may be His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity.
And how does God apply the treasure of salvation Christ has won to me, personally?
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.
February 7th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #45
I am using the expression in the same sense as the author of Hebrews in chapters 9 and 10. The Greek term is εφάπαξ (10:10), meaning “taking place once and to the exclusion of any further occurrence, once for all, once and never again” (Danker & Bauer).
February 7th, 2010 | 2:48 pm | #46
@David: OK, thanks for the clarification. I take it then you do believe that the Atonement was limited.
February 7th, 2010 | 2:52 pm | #47
The google translator renders εφάπαξ as “lump sum.”
February 7th, 2010 | 3:00 pm | #48
Paul McCain: “I take it then you do believe that the Atonement was limited.”
This was not the issue I was addressing above.
February 7th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #49
Maybe not, David, but I’d like to know if you believe in a limited atonement. Unlike Daryl, I’m just asking a question, not trying to lure you into a trap or a never-ending comment debate. Just would like to know where you stand on the Limited Atonement doctrine of classic Dort-esque Calvinism.
February 7th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #50
Thanks for your answer Reverend. But what I’d like to know is how you know it applies to you, personally.
No trap there, or anywhere else.
February 7th, 2010 | 3:46 pm | #51
I really can’t say more than I have. I’m sorry my answer is not proving satisfactory to you.
I would be curious to know how you would answer the question you have asked me.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:13 pm | #52
Rev. McCain,
Because I believe. I have repented as Scripture says I must. My conscience has, like yours, been taken captive.
My point, and seriously, I’m not after anything beyond making a point that I think is worth making.
You kept asking the question of others, insisting that they not look at themselves in any sense. And yet, when it comes down to it, you also say that you believe, that your conscience has been taken captive.
Why is that not looking at something in yourself, when you’ve said that it is for others?
It’s an honest question. I know that the ground of my salvation, and yours, and everyone else here, is only in the work of Christ on our behalf. We all, you included, would say that.
But I still wonder why, in recognizing that Christ’s work applies to me and you, in particular, we cannot admit that we must believe. There is, then, something I must look to in myself. As Paul said “Examine yourself, to see if you are in the faith”.
All the Calvinist answers that you wanted to dismiss so quickly, essentially said the same thing. “I know it applies to me because I see, in me the gift of faith which God has given.”, or, to put it another way “I know it applies to me because I believe.”
And, you yourself would say the same thing. We know it doesn’t apply to Joe down the street because he doesn’t believe. Likewise we know it does apply to us because we do.
I don’t understand how that is believing in belief, or having faith in faith.
It’s not frustrating as a Calvinist because you have given a Lutheran answer, it’s frustrating because you give no answer at all, and even deny the possiblity of anyone giving an answer.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:24 pm | #53
Our respective answers are helpful for this conversation.
I don’t see much of Christ in your answer, but rather, a focus on “I have repented” and “because I believe.”
Now, I’m sure you are a sincere Jesus follower but your focus seems more on what’s going on in you, than what Jesus has done and is doing. It seems to me that assurance for you consists primarily in trusting in your belief and relying on your repentance. I’d prefer an answer that has less of Daryl and more of Jesus in it.
Thanks for answering the question you put to me. I think you have provided a helpful contrast between Lutheranism and Calvinism. And for that I thank you.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:38 pm | #54
Rev. McCain,
Come on man, be straight here. I have said that my confidence lies in Christ, I can’t be more plain about that.
But you, having stated that you believe that Christ died for every person who ever lived, have been given the burden of explaining why anyone can know that they, in particular, have been saved. I have fully acknowledged that our ground is Christ, what you have failed to do, and indeed have refused to do, is identify how anyone can know that they, in particular, will not wind up in hell, but rather, in heaven.
I don’t think you disagree at all, I think you know why you believe Christ’s sacrifice will save you and not another but you’ve dug yourself into a hole and realize that you will have to backtrack a little in order to answer the question.
If we have, indeed demonstrated the difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism, then here it is…
Calvinism believes that you can know if you are saved, because you can know that you have indeed, repented and believed in Christ as your only hope.
Lutheranism (although I suspect not Lutheranism but Rev. McCainism as represented on this blog) believes that you can’t know at all because recognizing that one has repented and believed is not permitted.
Do I believe for a second that Lutheranism actually believes and teaches that? Not a chance.
And hopefully readers on this blog can differentiate between what you are here willing to admit, and what the Lutheran faith actually teaches.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:41 pm | #55
It’s not frustrating as a Calvinist because you have given a Lutheran answer, it’s frustrating because you give no answer at all, and even deny the possiblity of anyone giving an answer.
Exactly right. To hear the Rev. speak, one would think that folks could be saved and not even know it.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:46 pm | #56
Brad, ok, so, tell you what, for the sake of this interesting discussion, prepare an answer for me to give you that would satisfy you. I’d like to read what that would be.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:47 pm | #57
I am straight. Married with three children, thank you.
Yes, your “confidence lies in Christ” but it is just interesting to me that you seem to want to talk more about Daryl Little’s repentance and your trust than about what Christ has done, and is doing, in your life. The quotes I offered are, in my view, beautiful example of a truly Jesus-centered Evangelicalism and I welcome you to enjoy them.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:52 pm | #58
@Brad/Daryl:
Now, if you are asking me about what signs and guarantees of God’s gracious will and work He gives me, I’m afraid I must disappoint you yet once again.I was buried with Christ into His death and raised to a new life through the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit aka Holy Baptism. God gives into my mouth the actual body and blood of Jesus under the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. And God says to me through the Most Venerable Sacrament of Holy Communion, “Take eat…this is for you.” He gives me a pastor who, in the stead and by the command of Christ, forgives me of all my sins. He consoles me through mutual conversation and consolation among the Christian brothers and sisters He gives me. He has given me His Word which, when I read, study, hear it preached and meditate on it, the Holy Spirit is at work, etc. etc. Such wonderful blessings are the means by which God gives His grace! True. Real. Personal. Just as the word of Christ promises. It’s all about Jesus, you see, doing what Jesus does. I know you want me to talk about what I’ve done, or am doing, but I would rather talk about Jesus and His work and His gifts. It’s much more sure and certain. Sorry, but I can’t do otherwise.
February 7th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #59
Rev. McCain,
So you have no answer as to how the guy sitting beside you in the pew, enjoying all those same benefits, believing that merely by attending that same church, recieving the same communion, having been baptized as a baby, hearing the same absolution, but thinking its all a bunch of hooey…isn’t going to heaven with you.
Or do you imagine that he is?
And then one day, that same guy turns to you and says “For all my life I’ve attended this church, and for all my life I’ve never believed a word of it, but I’ve done everything that you have done and recieved everything that you have recieved. But suddenly I realize that it’s not enough. What must I do to be saved, Rev. McCain, please tell me, what must I do?”
And you say “Well, son…”
How would you fill that in?
February 7th, 2010 | 5:09 pm | #60
Daryl, if he does think it is a bunch of hooey, I would admonish him and preach the Law to him. If he said the second thing you said, I would reintroduce him to the Christian Faith, via Luther’s Small Catechism.
You would be amazed at how many Evangelicals or Calvinists I’ve spoken to on their death beds who have never heard the pure, clear objective word of Christ crucified for the sins of the world, and once they do, the joy they know is indescribable. When their whole lives they have been urged to make decisions for Jesus, to examine their hearts to see if in it they have *truly* repented and thrown constantly back on themselves, the living water of the Gospel is the most refreshing thing they have ever experienced.
And you would no doubt be surprised at how many Calvinists do fret over the question of whether or not they are one of the “lucky ones” whom God created to show forth His glory by sending them to Hell. The Gospel is a wonderful antidote.
February 7th, 2010 | 5:18 pm | #61
Your last paragraph is bang on. Every Christian asks that question from time to time, and in every case the Gospel is the only antidote.
Personally I can say that while I still have those questions from time to time, it was not until I saw the truth of Calvinism that the constantness of the struggle with assurance disappeared.
I think you would be surprised at how many Lutherans have the same doubts, they, after all, are just as human as the rest of us.
I must say that I find it odd, and more than a little dangerous, to see that you didn’t mention repentance, as the apostles always did.
If that guy is 5 minutes from death (and we can never really know if anyone is), I would sugest that an introduction to Luther’s Catechism would be exactly the wrong answer.
Tell me, does Luther’s Catechism ever mention repentance and faith? I bet it does.
Did that apostles ever give an explanation of the Christian faith in response to that question?
If they did, I’ve never seen it.
Your answer is a great way to hold your Lutheran line in this conversation, no doubt, but biblically it seems to me to fall far short.
February 7th, 2010 | 5:22 pm | #62
And why, oh why, would you preach the law to someone asking how to be saved? Have they, in the asking, not acknowledged their failure in that regard?
And for the record…
I would tell him, “Repent, and look only to Jesus for your salvation, and you will be saved. The Bible promises it.”
February 7th, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #63
Daryl, when you told me that man in question regarded as “hooey” all the things you mentioned, he needs to hear the Law so as to be moved by the Holy Spirit to repent of his sin of rejecting the truth.
What you would never be able to tell the man is that “Jesus died for your sins”….which is the Gospel. If you did say it, you would only do it with the odious Calvinist asterisk. *May or may not be true for you, we shall see.
Indeed, we do have a different spirit. It saddens me to say so, but I come away from this weekend’s discussions all the more convinced that what Luther said to Zwingli and Bucer nearly 500 years ago is as true today as it ever was.
February 7th, 2010 | 6:18 pm | #64
After reading this exchange, I cannot help thinking that the Rev. Mr. McCain has come to the table with his mind made up about what Calvinists must think and ready to pick a fight with these brothers and sisters in Christ. Now he writes: “It saddens me to say so, but I come away from this weekend’s discussions all the more convinced that what Luther said to Zwingli and Bucer nearly 500 years ago is as true today as it ever was.” But did he ever entertain the possibility that this was not true? I doubt it. No matter how much we Reformed Christians protest that we place our trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, he is always ready to put the worst spin on it and to anathematize us accordingly.
I rather think that one of us could post something similarly provocative, accusing Lutherans of neglecting sanctification and failing to recognize the third use of the law. Are there evidences of election? Or do these not count in the Lutheran scheme? I should think repentance would have to be one of these, and a rather basic one at that.
February 7th, 2010 | 6:27 pm | #65
Rev. McCain,
I’ll get back to you in a bit. Tonight, oddly enough, I am teaching a class at the church on Reformation history.
We don’t get to the part about the Reformers drowning us until next week, though.
February 7th, 2010 | 6:48 pm | #66
And now, from a Catholic perspective….
Just kidding.
February 7th, 2010 | 6:55 pm | #67
But blame Calvin for the notion that it is finally our faith, not Christ crucified, that is our assurance of our election.
No, blame Paul (the apostle, not the Rev.) who gave the nature of the Thessalonians response to and transformation by the gospel as grounds for his confidence of their election.
Election is in Christ. You’ll get no argument from me on that.
But you’re not asking what the basis of election is. You are asking on what grounds someone knows or is assured that they are of the elect. They are two different things. This category error was pointed out to you yesterday in the other thread but you are either ignoring it or refusing to acknowledge it.
If you are asking the reason for someone’s confidence that God has chosen them, then you should be satisfied with people pointing to the same things the apostle Paul points to—a proper response to the gospel, a faith that is steadfast and rejoices in affliction, a changed life, the witness of the Holy Spirit, etc. After all, if they were good enough for Paul, they should be good enough for you.
Anyway, they are good enough for me. I’m not going to try to do better than Paul.
February 7th, 2010 | 7:38 pm | #68
David, did you ever answer my question? Do you believe in a limited atonement?
February 7th, 2010 | 8:01 pm | #69
Every Christian does, Reverend, every Christian does.
The only issue is at which point and by what is it limited. That’s an important point, no doubt, but nowhere nearly as important as you seem to imagine.
February 7th, 2010 | 8:32 pm | #70
No, Daryl, every Christian does not believe in a Limited Atonement. You can try another page out of the Calvinist playbook, this one ain’t working.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:04 pm | #71
Funny, you’re the first Lutheran I’ve heard say that. Calvinists limit it in it’s intent, Lutheran’s in it’s effect. Neither say that Jesus would need to die again were God to change Him mind and save someone He hadn’t planned on. (And yes, I know God doesn’t change His mind, it’s a hypothetical to make the point). Either way, it doesn’t get every single person into heaven does it? For the life of me, I can’t understand why this is the sticking point for you. I understand why you don’t believe as I do, I understand how particular atonement is a difficult thing to get ones head around, but I don’t understand the huge fuss over it and why it somehow defines the gospel for you.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:08 pm | #72
“I don’t understand the huge fuss over it and why it somehow defines the gospel for you.”
When a person has to resort to disingenuous comments like this one, that ends a conversation.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:18 pm | #73
Rev. McCain,
You confused me, so I had to set myself some time to go back to Luther. I am not an “L” wielding jihadist. I don’t even care if someone calls me a Calvinist.
But Luther says some things in his preface to Romans that seem contrary to what you say here. Namely:
Hence it comes that faith alone makes righteous and fulfils the law; for out of Christ’s merit, it brings the Spirit and the Spirit makes the heart glad and free.
How is Luther here not making the same “faith in faith” mistake you berate the poor Calvinists for? Why Did Luther replace “faith alone” with “atonement alone”? Here is another money quote for you from Luther:
Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace so sure and certain that a man would stake his life on it a thousand times. This confidence in God’s grace and knowledge of it makes men glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and all His creatures; and this is the work of the Holy Ghost in faith. (Bold is mine.)
And all the Calvinists said Amen. Why does Luther say that a man would stake his life on faith a thousand times, I wonder? Isn’t that throwing a man back on the cesspool of his own subjectivity?
I have more Luther. The more I read him, the less he sounds like you.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #74
Take off the Calvinist blinders and Luther will sound like Luther not like John Calvin.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:29 pm | #75
Karyn –
Thanks for your comments. I would agree with almost all of them, and the ones I would not agree with come down to the Lutheran blind-spot.
Of particular interest is that you said this:
It causes me to have three questions:
1. What do you call this “reliance on the power of God’s absolute promise based on the work of His perfect son”?
2. Are there any saved that do not have this “reliance on the power of God’s absolute promise based on the work of His perfect son”?
3. Does the word “ἐκλεκτός” refer to those who have “reliance on the power of God’s absolute promise based on the work of His perfect son”, or does it refer to some other category in the human race?
I’m interested because it seems to me you’re not arguing against my position at all — you’re arguing against something else which looks a lot like a massive failure to engage the issues in play. I cannot possibly be clearer about that use of “ἐκλεκτός” in the NT, Calvin’s references and use of that word — especially in Rev. McCain’s citations — and the basis for using that word in a common discussion especially one including “Calvinists”.
Please: since Rev. McCain will not answer the obvious questions already presented to him, you answer these. I have been quite obliging to answer every single question presented, and it would be (to say the least) civil for the other side of this exchange to extend the same courtesy.
If you will answer these questions, I will be happy to continue this exchange. If you will not, and Rev. McCain will not, what we have is a harangue and not a discussion. When one side will only dispense lectures and simply ignore all information provided by the other side, there’s no sense continuing.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:33 pm | #76
Stuart:
Citing Luther calling those who do not believe that the Lamb of God takes away all sin from every person ever “not Christian” is an interesting way to not call Calvinists heretics.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:47 pm | #77
Rev. McCain, Discussing this with you is like talking to Pee Wee Herman. Every time a point is made, you just say, “I know you are but what am I?” Luther flatly contradicts you. Its obvious.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:52 pm | #78
Mr. McCain, you said (emphasis mine) –
How do you know this is so when you do those things? If an unbeliever studies God’s word, hears it preached and meditates on it does this mean the Holy Spirit has or will convert them?
Also, in case you haven’t noticed, Calvinists have been one of the most vocal groups against evangelism that simply calls people to “make decisions for Jesus.” I’m not sure why you repeat this accusation.
Ironically, a Calvinist could say that they are a Christian by the work of the Holy Spirit convicting them of sin, regenerating them and giving them the gift of faith and repentance causing them to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:54 pm | #79
I believe I am going to Heaven because I have repented of my sins, I have faith in the God of the Bible, and I strive to follow that God.
Nevertheless, if the Calvin God is real, I hat Him and do not want to go to Heaven and I refuse to believe He’s real. Am I of the elect?
February 7th, 2010 | 10:07 pm | #80
Ortho,
I pray not. But shaky ground my friend, shaky ground.
I agree totally with that first sentence, but if the Arminian or Lutheran God is real, I want to repent, and I know that at the last day, God will forgive my error as He has all my others.
Having said all that, I am fully convinced, and not by a Calvinist textbook, that the understanding of God and salvation, commonly called Calvinism, is the biblical understanding.
I really don’t understand why anyone would go out on the limb, onto which you have climbed.
Question to the more knowledgeable:
Rod Rosenblatt is a Lutheran pastor from the Missouri Synod, he joins forces with Calvinists on the WHI, and whenever Limited Atonement comes up, they all, Rod included, agree easily that the difference is primarily once of location of the limiting action, not the value of the atonement.
Is he not representative of historical Lutheran teaching?
I’ve just been wondering that through this “conversation”.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:08 pm | #81
OK, I just realized I said ‘I pray not’, fear not Ortho, I really did mean ‘I pray so’.
I read your question backwards I fear.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:09 pm | #82
All the rest of you:
Wow. I’m sorry you wasted your time here this afternoon. You might as well have been arguing with Bill Clinton about what the meaning of “is” is.
As I sign off for the night, let’s make something clear: since Luther was categorically committed to the systematic statement that Christ died for all sin of every man at all times and places, we have to go to Herr Luther and ask him why, then, some men wind up in hell.
See: the problem for Lutherans is that some men do go to hell. You would think that since the whole race is not free from the sin debt, Hell would be empty — but even Luther read Rev 20. Hell will not be empty.
So how does the Lutheran manage this? The Book of Concord tells us (what this now):
See: only the believers had Hell destroyed for them.
More interestingly for the High Lutherans who are frankly making quite a mess of this thread for themselves, is the section down in the same document regarding election, where it says:
And I respect their holding double predestination at arm’s length, Rev 20 notwithstanding. After that it says further:
How did none of this wind up in today’s thread, I wonder? Can it be that our neighborhood Lutherans do not hold to the Formula of Concord? Well, of course that can’t be it: they’re Lutherans. They must hold to the EFC or else Martin Luther might explode or something.
What I think has happened — as it happened in my exchange with Stuart last year — is that the High Lutherans cannot stand any formula for the fact so Scripture, no other systematic, but their own.
See: they believe that only the elect believe; they believe only the believers are saved from Hell; they believe that Christ’s work is what saves the believers from Hell. And while I did not cite it here, one should read the section of the EFC about free will to see if they believe that faith is something I do for me or something God has given me — because once we plug that into this discussion, it seems like gibberish for a Lutheran to start calling “faith in faith” some sort of Christ-denying work since faith is itself a work of Christ.
So all that said, I have made a Calvinist case for the matter from Scripture, from the work of Calvin, and then the case against the accusations of the High Lutherans here from their own doctrinal formulations. All they have done to this point is avoid direct questions and hurl more derision when they are frankly rebuffed — and not a lick of Scripture is exegeted by one of them (except where they cite Luther as the last apostle).
That’s all I have to say about the matter. If Rev. McCain comes to his senses, of course I’ll be here to accept it. After that, there’s nothing left to say to here because this is not a discussion: the other side is categorically intransigent and will not respond to reasonable questions.
God bless you all, and good night.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #83
Daryl,
As an ex-Calvinist who came to love Luther and approve of his teachings as true to “the faith once delivered to the saints”, I understand your confusion here. I do not know Mr. Rosenblatt or his teachings, but I can say that any Lutheran who makes light of the false doctrine of limited atonement is surely an imposter and is Lutheran in name only, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
You are probably not very familiar with true orthodox Lutheranism, but Francis Pieper (1852-1931) is widely regarded as our finest dogmatician. He is very true to what Luther himself taught. His three-volume Christian Dogmatics has been used for nearly 100 years as the standard systematic theology textbook for orthodox Lutheran seminaries around the world. His Brief Statement is commonly included in orthodox Lutheran confessions of faith. On the issue of limited atonement, Dr. Pieper writes, “The Calvinistic doctrine which restricts the grace of God to only one part of mankind is a trap of despair, a pestilence, death and damnation for the soul… The Calvinist Reformed doctrine that the grace of God includes only one part of mankind is a soul-murdering doctrine.” (Theses on Unionism, p. 12).
Also, beware of most modern-day Lutheranism, including the Missouri Synod. It was once truly orthodox, but for the last 50 years has been compromising, unionistic, and basically apostate. If you want to know the correct orthodox Lutheran truths, go directly to Luther’s Works and the Lutheran Confessions.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:34 pm | #84
Stuart,
Thank you. I believe Mr. Turk has just now (and previously) done as you recommend, and pretty fully dismantled all your arguments from Lutheran sources, including Luther himself.
Luther was a great man, with great faults, not least of which was holding a hard line where a hard line ought not be held.
I am grateful for what he began, and what others continued, in that hard march back to Scripture.
I highly doubt that Luther would approve of using his writings for a defense of the gospel, when a Bible is right handy. And as I have been convinced by Scripture, I think I’ll stay here.
I’ve seen who you’ll call a false teacher, Stuart, and over what. Sorry, your word carries no weight here. Truth be told, your word tends to convince one of the opposite of what you say.
But I do wonder why Orthodj would say what he said.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:42 pm | #85
Stuart, if you’re not a Missouri Synod Lutheran, are you a WELS Lutheran?
February 7th, 2010 | 10:49 pm | #86
Paul writes: “Do you believe in a limited atonement?” My answer is that I affirm St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 9:6-24.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:50 pm | #87
Frank,
Let me ask Luther for you:
Me: Luther, if Christ died for all sins, then why do some people still go to Hell?
Luther: Great question, Orthodoxdj. Well, it comes down to the fact that while God has enabled all to participate in salvation, it is not essential that any actually do because the act of God going to the Cross for man’s sins is not contingent upon man’s response. Thus, we Lutherans have the doctrine of objective justification and its sister doctrine subjective justification. The first says Jesus paid the penalty for all sins. The second says that people must participate in forgiveness in order to be saved.
Me: Why would some people refuse the Gospel?! That’s crazy!
Luther: Another good question. Let’s ask Scripture about that. Ah, here it is: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
Me: So, it sounds like that while Jesus died for all people, some will refuse to be saved. Doesn’t that nullify the work of the Cross?
Luther: Let God be true and every man a liar.
Me: Thanks, Martin Luther, you’re the king. I’m off to go watch my favorite cartoon “Calvin and the Chipmunks”.
Luther: I’ve heard of that show. Isn’t that the one about the guy who adopts the three chipmunks, and sometimes the little chipmunks will do things that warrant all three being disciplined, but when the guy disciplines he usually ends up saying something along the lines of, “You’re all in trouble. Each of you will go to bed without dessert, and you are all grounded. Now,Calvin, you’re coming with me. I’m taking you to get ice cream and to see a movie.Yes, you should be in trouble, and you don’t deserve to go, but I have elected to take you with me simply because I want to. That’s how I roll.You other two will stay here and think about what you’ve done. Maybe next time I’ll take you instead of Calvin. You should all respect me because at any time I can punish you or not.”
Me: Haha…yeah. Funny show. Imagine a dad being like that in real life! Wow, he’d be a jerk. All the kids are totally responsible for what they’ve done, but some get excused from punishment simply because the dad did the ol’ “ink a bink, a bottle of ink” routine and let some off the hook for no reason. He then takes those he picked to go on a tropical vacation with him! If earthly fathers are supposed to be examples of our Heavenly Father, what example would that teach kids. It basically says God is capricious and arbitrary and that no one knows why He has chosen to forgive some and not others.
Luther: True dat, Orthodox. It kind of reminds me of that TV movie “Geneva Conviction”.
Me: I haven’t seen that one. What’s it about?
Luther: It’s a about a guy named John who goes on a cruise in Switzerland. One night a few partyers fall overboard. John jumps in and out of ten people he saves five. At first everyone calls the guy a hero for saving the people. Among those saved was an older black lady, a young white man, an older Russian couple, and teenage Latino. All were very grateful.
Me: That’s it?! What a boring movie.
Luther: Let me finish, my man. Just wait and see. A few weeks after the incident the Geneva cops pull up to the man’s house and arrest him. As it turns out, while it is no doubt true that he saved five people, he let five people drown.
Me: So…big deal. He had to act fast and make a choice. Who can blame him?
Luther: Ah, but you see, he COULD HAVE SAVED ALL TEN but he CHOSE NOT TO.
Me: WHAT???!!!!!!!! Take him away! That’s no hero!
Luther: Exactly. Everyone praised him for saving the five. They said he was so loving. How loving does he look now? In court his defense was that the people were partying and it was their fault they fell overboard. They deserved what was coming to them. He only allowed them to have the consequences of their actions. In his eyes, he really is a hero for saving anyone at all.
Me: That man will face God one day. I hope he repents before it’s too late.
Luther: It’s just a movie, Ortho! Besides, maybe he’s one of the elect…in that case he’ll be fine (Luther throws me a wink).
February 7th, 2010 | 10:57 pm | #88
Ortho,
Funny how you always claim to have been a Calvinist, yet every time you write about it, you write like someone who has never even heard of it.
So, tell me, why did you say that if the “Calvinist” God is real, you hate him and would hate heaven.
Why not say that if He’s real, that He will be merciful and gracious and forgive you this sin, like He has all the rest?
I just don’t get that. Seriously.
February 7th, 2010 | 10:59 pm | #89
David,
My sad experience is that WELS is as bad as, if not worse, than the Missouri Synod. I really have not found much today that is true to orthodox Lutheranism as it once was. The only group that I am in fellowship with is a small group in Australia called the Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Reformation. They were once in fellowship with Missouri when it was good, but that was a long time ago. Most of modern-day Lutheranism is a total wash. Sorry to have to tell you that, but it’s true. Just as the Jews claim Abraham, but not his faith, and the Catholics claim Peter, but not his faith, so most Lutherans claim Luther, but do not understand nor hold to his teachings and faith.
Again, I would point you to Luther himself, the Lutheran Confessions (1581), Francis Pieper, Martin Chemnitz, Johann Gerhard, and C.F.W. Walther (especially his writings on predestination – “Essays for the Church”)
Don’t be discouraged by what I say. We must remember that we are at the end of the world and this is what we were told to expect – “the great falling away” (2 Thes. 2).
One last note, don’t accept Frank’s labels of High Lutheranism and Low Lutheranism. Rather there is true Lutheranism (which is nothing else but true Christianity) and false Lutheranism (the devil’s ape).
February 7th, 2010 | 11:19 pm | #90
Daryl,
I’m serious with what I said. If the Calvinist version of God is real, I absolutely hate him. I don’t take it back.
Then again, there are really only a few options:
1) I am one of the elect, so it doesn’t matter what i FEEL.
2) I am not one of the elect, so it doesn’t matter, anyway. Hell is my destiny no matter what.
3) I’m not one of the elect, but in time I will come to like Calvinism, but basically number 2 is still the case.
I’m not wrong about Calvinism. You are just frustrated with its logical conclusions. For that I am glad. You are demonstrating that Calvinism is untenable.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:23 pm | #91
Sorry man, I have no such frustrations. I am convinced and glad that I am.
I have lived in other systems and understandings of Scripture, and studied, to some extent, more, and can honestly see no other way to understand the Bible.
I love that God is this way and am thankful for this forgiving, electing, predestining God, like I am for nothing else.
I would have no hope otherwise.
None.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:35 pm | #92
Maybe you were chosen to believe Calvinism and I wasn’t.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:41 pm | #93
Scripture doesn’t leave it there. As you know.
Right now, the issue for me isn’t whether or not you are a Calvinist. Not at all.
The issue is your chosing to say essentially that if your understanding of Scripture is wrong, you hate God and would rather burn in hell for ever than repent.
THAT’S what I’m calling you to repent of. The pride that says “I’m right, and if I’m wrong, God, I hate you.”
Repent of THAT, and remain an Arminian or Lutheran or whatever you call yourself, for all I care. Just be a Christian, and love God for who he says he is, even if He makes no sense to you, and even if you can’t accept the Calvinist understanding.
Please, man. Do that. I fear the line you’re walking is a too fine a one, and you can’t see the ditch alongside.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:51 pm | #94
We can go all the way with your proposition. If Islam is true, I don’t like that God, either. What about you? Then again, maybe I ought to repent of that, too.
Hey, I think the Mormon god is seriously lacking. Do I need to repent of that, too?
I think the JWs are guilty of heresy. Should I repent of that?
What you are saying to me is, “Hey, man, repent of holding to your conviction and pretend that the other side is true.” How can i repent of something I believe in? I have no desire to repent of saying Calvinism distorts the Gospel and the nature of God. I’ll call you to the same proposition: Daryl, repent of believing in Calvinism because you are distorting the Gospel.
February 7th, 2010 | 11:56 pm | #95
BTW, I don’t hate God. I have no fear of hating God by saying I loathe Calvinism. Once again, though, it’s clear. If your view is true, I am not responsible for my status. Even if you say the reprobates are responsible for their sins, you must concede that the reprobates are in the non-elect category BECAUSE God did not elect them. If that’s me,then I’m okay with it. If I’m one of the elect, it’ll all work out, anyway.
As for my view: I hold that God has given man genuine freewill, that God is calling all to repent, that Cross is for all, and that our sins are our own fault. Thus, in my view YOU, Daryl, are responsible for your sins, and that YOU can change your mind about Calvinism.
Your view says I am one of two things by nature and that I cannot change that no matter what I do. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with Calvinism and it might be you, not me, who misunderstands what Calvinism teaches.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:05 am | #96
Ortho,
Man, you are missing it. My proposition is exactly nothing like how you have portrayed it.
I am convinced of Calvinism, it’s true. But that is a far cry from saying that if the Lutheran or Arminian God is real, I hate him.
I’m NOT calling you to repent of not being a Calvinist. I though I was clear on that. I’m calling you to repent of chosing to hate God if ever you were to discover that Calvinism has it right.
Big difference. Huge, life-changing difference.
I believe Arminianism (and Rev. McCain’s version of Lutheranism) distort God and the gospel terribly. But let God be true and you and I a liar. I would repent and change if I were to be convinced.
But you have said that you would rather burn in hell if it was shown that you are wrong on this.
Honestly, that makes me afraid for you. Terribly so.
Understand this. If you are convinced by Scripture that Calvinism is wrong, it would be a sin to believe otherwise. Even if Calvinism is right. I wouldn’t call you to repent of that, I would (and do) call you to re-examine the Scripture, particularly the ones that you, as a former Calvinist, know are the “biggies”.
But I will not call you to repent of being convinced.
Man, I would stay on here all night if I thought I had a chance of convincing you to repent of your deciding to hate God if you turn out to be wrong here. (And with my current work-load, that may end up happening yet…)
And truly, if you were to do so…this whole crazy thread, with all of Rev. McCain’s shenanigan’s included, would have been worth it.
That’s how I see it.
And in case you missed it…
I AM NOT CALLING YOU TO REPENT OF NOT BEING A CALVINIST.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:17 am | #97
Daryl,
You seem like a good guy, and who knows, if we lived near each other we would be friends. don’t want to argue with you just argue. Nevertheless, I think you are missing my biggest point. If it is the case that your view is true, do you not see that it doesn’t matter what I do, say, or believe? According to you, my ultimate destiny is not in my hands. That being the case, why are you worried for me? Are you essentially calling God out by saying that? If I am one of the elect, I will be with you in heaven. If I am not, I will be in Hell. That has been decided…BY GOD.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:43 am | #98
Orthodoxdj: “I have no desire to repent of saying Calvinism distorts the Gospel and the nature of God.”
Daryl Little: “I believe Arminianism (and Rev. McCain’s version of Lutheranism) distort God and the gospel terribly.”
I, for one, appreciate such forthwith clarity and honest conviction.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:44 am | #99
“If it is the case that your view is true, do you not see that it doesn’t matter what I do, say, or believe?”
See, Ortho, this is why I, and others, make the claim that you don’t understand Calvinism. The Bible addresses both God’s sovereignty and our responsibility, giving quarter to neither. The same Jesus who said “All those the Father gives me, WILL come to me” also said “Repent”. The same Paul, whose preaching and the susequent response to it prompted Luke to write “and all those predestined for eternal life, believed.”, also said “do you not know that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”.
Nowhere, does God’s sovereign chosing abrogate our responsibility to repent. In fact, as you are no doubt aware, Paul raises and answers that very point.
“Then how can He find fault” Paul asks rhetorically “for who can resist His will.” Almost exactly the scenario you are painting here.
“Who are you, O man, to talk back to God. Shall the clay say to the potter, what have you done?”
And yet you put yourself in the possible situation of saying just that very thing.
Even as Paul, and Jesus, teach God’s electing grace, they both call us to repentance, over and over.
So yes, it matters. There is no salvation for anyone, without repentance. The elect are never elected to do nothing, but to repent and believe.
So I am worried because you have said “If I am wrong, I will not repent.” And it is exactly because I believe that God is sovereign that I hold this out to you. I need not (indeed I can not) repent perfectly, or love completely or believe exactly but God is faithful and will keep His promises. And He has promised that “anyone who comes to Me, I will in no wise cast out”.
No Calvinist I know of, would ever say “If God has elected you, you’re in whether you repent or not.” Neither would they say “If God hasn’t chosen you, you can repent all day, but all to no avail.” Repentance is the sign of election. No one is saved without it.
Of course. If you are not chosen, you will not repent. But neither you, nor I can know that, until we look at each other across the table in heaven and say ‘Hi, I’m Bob, you knew me as Orthodj…”
And so I call you, as we have been commanded to call all men. Be reconciled to God!
February 8th, 2010 | 12:54 am | #100
Orthodoxdj: “Daryl,
You seem like a good guy, and who knows, if we lived near each other we would be friends. don’t want to argue with you just argue.”
Orthodoxdj, even though you think Calvinist Daryl Little distorts the Gospel and the nature of God, and may belong to a Calvinist church that teaches a distortion of the Gospel, do you think you could be a co-belligerent with him on socio-politico-cultural issues such as the sanctity of life, biblical marriage, and religious liberty?
February 8th, 2010 | 12:58 am | #101
TUAD,
This is not the time to drag up your silly MD hobby horse TUAD. You plainly know nothing of my church or Orthodj’s.
But since you used the quote you did…
Ortho, I am not arguing just to argue. And yes, we probably would be friends, I can list the number of my Calvinist friends (blogosphere excepted) on half of one hand.
So at least, my tolerance for you and what you believe is not the issue here. I think I’ve made that plain, in any case.
February 8th, 2010 | 1:18 am | #102
The question was to Orthodoxdj. Thank you very much.
Furthermore, Orthodoxdj is an Anglican. And please note, I used the word “may” when I wrote “… Daryl Little distorts the Gospel and the nature of God, and may belong to a Calvinist church that teaches a distortion of the Gospel….”
Daryl Little, halt dem mund.
February 8th, 2010 | 1:46 am | #103
“Daryl Little, halt dem mund.”
The Reverend McCain will like that, no doubt.
February 8th, 2010 | 3:46 am | #104
Calvin and the chipmunks?
Haha
God wrote that joke
With all my heart I wish people would stick to the questions at hand, and not misrepresent their opposition’s arguments…
Too many straw men in OZ this weekend
Daryl Little #99 – Couldn’t imagine it spelled out better than that, well done
halt dem mund? really TUAD?
Isn’t that a tad juvenile?
February 8th, 2010 | 6:59 am | #105
So, I’m reviewing the comments posted here after, oh, around 10:30 p.m. and thinking to myself: “Good rule of thumb: do not post comments on blogs after 11:00.”
February 8th, 2010 | 8:36 am | #106
As the elephant in the room continues to crunch peanuts . . .
February 8th, 2010 | 9:53 am | #107
Mr. Turk Re Comment #82,
I believe it was Rebecca in comment #67 in this thread who pointed to Paul’s perception of external evidences of faith in others as signs to him of their election. Please note that in your examples, Paul was making that assessment of *others*, not expressing that his faith was the assurance of his own election. When Christians need to assess whether their neighbor is a believer, obviously all they can do is look for marks of faith in that person, but for assurance of our own election, we can look outside of our person, directly to Christ and grab hold of His promises in Word and Sacrament. On the “faith in faith” vs. faith in Christ issue, the general objection is to the practice of focusing on the subject of faith (yourself) as assurance of election rather than on the object of faith (Christ). The focus manifests itself in a variety of ways; some of which have been demonstrated in these blog threads. When it comes to assurance of salvation, the focal point makes a difference. I am not in the position to judge the hearts of fellow bloggers; I can only interpret the words I’m presented with and respond accordingly. I think that’s really all that is left for me to say about it.
I don’t have the time at this point, to carry on with this blog exchange much further, but I will say that I would answer one of your questions in return for your answering the one I posed to you in my last comment and which you quoted. I asked you a question first so if you answer me, then I will answer the trio of questions you directed at me.
In your Comment #82, you assert, “we have to go to Herr Luther and ask him why, then, some men wind up in hell.” I say, “Oh really? We HAVE TO ask? That is your contention.” It is typically a desire to be god and insecurities that drives someone to try to know God’s hidden will on this particular issue. That is why I sincerely doubt Reverend McCain would encourage a quest to figure out God’s motives in His judgments regarding hell. Don’t you have something a little bit better to do with your time? We know God is omnipotent but as I’m sure you are aware, there are multiple causes in events. I do not agree that we have to understand any more about this than what Scripture says about the unpardonable sin (the sin against the Holy Spirit).
Your communication suggests you think you have pointed to contradictions but you haven’t shown any. From reading a variety of your articles and comments, I am aware you have a vibrant imagination and that can be “both a blessing and a curse”, as some would say. In these threads, I have witnessed that you have indeed been provided with lists of Scripture, particularly in support of Christ dying for all. You have been provided with doctrinal confessions from Lutheran and Calvinist traditions, and with analysis to support the Lutheran positions on the major issues that have been raised. No one is going to spend the time necessary to correct all of the misunderstandings or errors in all of the ideas you have expressed in these blog postings because it would be a full time job, but I have been fair and have made a good faith effort in sharing some alternative views on a small selection of your viewpoints.
You say, “the High Lutherans who are frankly making quite a mess of this thread for themselves.“ I say, blah, blah, blah, opinions, opinions, opinions…….thankfully a lot of people are not so dumb as to be incapable of sifting through, with God’s help, what is your opinion, presumptions, faulty logic and flawed exegesis. If you were in honest need of help, I would give you my time, but it is no secret that YOU are the one who is “categorically committed to a [Calvinistic] systematic” so it is not fair for you to expect me or anyone else on this site to wade through ALL of your assertions and make all the necessary corrections. It is tempting bait, but I’ll pass. Here are a few explanations Re your EFC quotes that you can consider if you wish to:
In Him {i.e. in the Gospel of Christ}
we are to seek the eternal election of the Father {i.e. we are to seek assurance of salvation},
who has determined in His eternal divine counsel {i.e. predestined}
that He would save {i.e. would bring with Him to heaven} no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him {i.e. only Christians}.
Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil.[X p13] {This one is for the doubters and critics}
“The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it.[EFC, Section X paragraph 5]” {This means God elects only to salvation, not to damnation. It explains that election is *a* cause of salvation and should be a comfort to believers. In the broad context of this confession you can see the point is that election is not a cause of damnation: no double predestination.}
February 8th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #108
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “God predestines no one to go to hell” (CCC 1037).
As Frank Turk might say, “Well, there–THAT settles it.” :)
February 8th, 2010 | 10:16 am | #109
“The Reverend McCain will like that, no doubt.”
I think he’ll like Karyn’s comment in #107 even more.
February 8th, 2010 | 10:38 am | #110
He would, TUAD, it fails to address a single Scripture or argument that Frank has made. Except in the part that concedes that God has elected for Himself a church, which was really Frank’s point from the get-go.
February 8th, 2010 | 10:43 am | #111
And, of course, double predestination is merely a natural understanding of predestination.
If God predestined some to salvation (and clearly He does), then He also, simultaneously purposefully passes over the rest.
Predestination to life involves and the action of regeneration on God’s part.
Predestination to death requires no action, just an allowing of rebellious sinners to go their way.
We’re not Hyper-calvinists…
February 8th, 2010 | 11:00 am | #112
Daryl,
You know what your problem is? You’re just obsessed with being logical and reasonable. That seems to be the most disgusting Calvinistic habit of all! You have to have a neat little packaged system that is bent on having explanatory power.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:09 am | #113
Rev McCain et all,
I thank you for the discussion, and I wanted to leave you with a few positives before I go my merry, muddled, baptistic way. :)
First, I thank you for the timely reminder to point people to the finished work of Jesus Christ and not to personal feelings. That is good advice for everyone, and it is what I have always intended to do.
Secondly, I thank you for making me go back and reading Luther’s commentary on Romans. He is often a profitable teacher.
Thirdly, I want you to know that I, for one, do not put the election cart ahead of the salvation horse. I never urge a doubter to check his election. (Though I do urge men to test themselves as per the apostles injunction *2 Cor. 13:5*.)
Finally, I appreciate that God used you to help me excercise restraint. That silly thing you said about water baptism creeped me out worse than anything you said about election. :)
Not Desiring Anyone to Perish,
Brad
February 8th, 2010 | 11:18 am | #114
Brad,
LOL, that’s awesome.
God forgive me, I think reality makes sense.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:19 am | #115
Quit feeding the elephant!
If God predestined some to salvation (and clearly He does), then He also, simultaneously purposefully passes over the rest.
Yes, that’s the formulation that tries to get God “off the hook” of directed “double predestination.” But most of Christianity does not find this move convincing, for one reason: it’s not Scriptural.
No need for our Calvinist friends to trot out their favorite proof texts. Among them will be Romans 9, which is always mishandled (hint: the chapter is not about individual salvation, but national election) and anyway, we’ve seen them all before.
Calvinism requires lifting individual texts out of micro and macro context, giving them a twist here and a fray there, then assembling a skein that purports to be a system.
Better to let the Bible speak for itself. I’ve found the Bible sheds a lot of light on commentaries.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:26 am | #116
Great point about the Bible Johnny. I don’t own any commentaries (although I wish I did).
The point on Calvinism…misses it pretty broadly.
I thought the elephant was the good Reverend’s amazing ability to answer without answering.
But maybe that’s just me…
BTW, it’s not about getting God off the hook. If God does it, it’s good, no matter what the optics are. I would be fine with what you say the doctrine of double predestination is, if I thought the Bible taught it.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:28 am | #117
Johnny D,
Among them will be Romans 9, which is always mishandled (hint: the chapter is not about individual salvation, but national election).
Yes, the national association of Pharaohs can all breathe a sigh of relief now.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:29 am | #118
Perhaps we should call a truce in this intramural “war.” These issues have been debated for centuries and it is the height of folly to think we can settle them here to everyone’s satisfaction. We are generating more heat than light (to coin a cliché). Is it not enough to know that we are saved by grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ? Differences over the finer details of how this is worked out and manifested in our lives are hardly cause for breaking fellowship with one another. We shouldn’t try to paper over differences, to be sure. But neither should we unduly magnify them.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:34 am | #119
David T. Koyzis: “Perhaps we should call a truce in this intramural “war.” … Is it not enough to know that we are saved by grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ?”
I fully agree with David. All the Trinitarian “C”/”c”hurches I know believe and teach that we are saved by grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:01 pm | #120
I think David’s suggestion is a good one. A truce is hereby called.
In so doing, I do not concede any point made, nor do I expect anyone else to do so either.
It is never, when it comes to the Gospel, a question of “what is enough” but what is true and faithful. We have vigorous disagreements over these issues.
As it has been said, you can’t split rotten wood, so the good news is that precisely because we have such vigorous disagreements means we are all profoundly committed to God’s Word and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and rejoice in the treasure of salvation that is found only in Him.
To that end, the comments on this post are now closed. Thanks for a fascinating conversation.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact