We are told that Calvinism is “Christocentric” on the grounds that God purposes His elect to be Redeemed by Christ. However, the Arminian criticism is that this is merely back-end Christocentric, rather than front-end Christocentric, as Arminians wish to know from Calvinists exactly how and why “the Elect” supposedly became the Father’s “elect” in the first place? Did it have anything whatsoever to do with Christ, and if so, how? This is the challenge that Arminians have historically put to Calvinists, which Calvinists have not adequately answered, as the following quote by a Calvinist demonstrates:
One Calvinist explains: “Do Calvinists secretly believe that God chose them for some reason other than their need for salvation? Would I, as a Christian, believe that God chose me for some other reason than my need for salvation? Yes, I do. God chose me for His glory, for His pleasure, for His purposes. Sure I had a need for salvation. But that is not why He saved me primarily. In the Bible, God does not say He chose us because of our desperate need. He chose us before our need ever arose.”
Keep that quote firmly in mind, as we now delve into commentary by J. Vernon McGee:
J. Vernon McGee writes: “We need a mediator, we need a priest, and we have one, the Great High Priest.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, p.38)
Why would "the Elect" (in the Father) “need” to be mediated to the Father, if they were already, eternally mediated to Him according to His secret purposes, as John Calvin states: “…the elect always belonged to God…for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393) So again, what “need” have they of being mediated? The historical Arminian complaint against Calvinism is that it renders Calvary as little more than divine pageantry and symbolism, rather than an authentic saving act, and it’s actually a good point, which Calvinists need to ponder before shooting off a quick answer.
J. Vernon McGee: “Job’s heart cry even in his day was, ‘Neither is there an daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both’ (Job 9:33). In effect, Job was crying out, ‘Oh, if there were somebody who could take hold of God’s hand and then take hold of my hand and bring us together that there might be communication and understanding between us!” Well, my friend, today we have a Mediator--the Lord Jesus Christ has come. He has one hand in the hand of Deity because He is God. He is able to save to the uttermost because He is God, and He has paid the price for our salvation. He is a Mediator because He has also become man. He can hold my hand; He understands me. He understands you; you can go to Him, and He is not going to be upset with you. He will not lose His temper or strike you or hurt you in any way. You may say, ‘Well, I’ve failed. I’ve done such-and-such, and I’ve come short of the glory of God.’ My friend, He knows that, and He still loves you and wants to put His arm around you.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, p.38)
This is why we “need” Jesus, because He is able to stand between God and man and reconcile the two, but this is rendered absurd if the roles of Father and Son are blurred in order to try make Calvinism front-end Christocentric.
McGee adds: “And you should go through Him, because there is really no use coming and telling me your troubles. I may not be sympathetic with you; I might not really understand your case. He does. He’s human. He is a daysman, a Mediator. He has put His hand in mine. I don’t put my hand in His; He puts His hand in mine and taken hold of me, but He also holds on to God because He is God, and He has brought us together.” (Thru the Bible commentary series: First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, p.39)
But all of this is pure absurdity if the Father is already holding your hand through secret Election, as John Calvin writes: “This way of speaking, however, may seem to be different from many passages of Scripture which attribute to Christ the first foundation of God’s love for us and show that outside Christ we are detested by God. But we ought to remember, as I have already said, that the Heavenly Father’s secret love which embraced us is the first love given to us.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.76, emphasis mine)
If that’s true, then the whole process of Christ being Mediator between us and God the Father is one big charade. Again, Arminianism is not about doing homage to Free Will, as alleged so often by Calvinists, but rather Arminianism is about preserving the integrity of both Scripture and of God’s character.
26 comments:
The elect have original sin just as the reprobate have original sin. We need a Mediator because we are dead in sin. Adam as our federal head fell in the Garden.
Hello Puritan,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Yes, Christ is indeed our Mediator to the Father (as we both agree), but according to Calvinism, it is the Father who gives an "elect" group to His Son, who the Son then in turn mediates to the Father.
Do you see the problem?
The "Elect" in this case are already in good standing with the Father (resulting in their being given), and hence what does the Son's mediation really accomplish?
Here is what Arminians think of such a premise:
Arminian, Robert Shank, states: “Thus Christ’s ‘redemptive’ career--the incarnation, His death and resurrection, His ascension and intercession--are seen as incidental and symbolic, divine pageantry rather than authentic saving acts.” (Elect in the Son, p.32)
Shank adds: “The atonement wrought by Christ was by no means symbolic. It was an authentic saving act made necessary by the holy character of God Himself, a saving act whereby God can adopt into sonship and into His kingdom men who have transgressed His righteous laws, outraged His holiness, and of themselves are sinners. The death of Jesus Christ was not pageantry. It was a decisive saving act in which Jesus Christ was truly instrumental in the election of men to salvation and the everlasting kingdom of God.” (Elect in the Son, p.36)
Thoughts?
Puritan,
What I liked about your comment was that it was simple, straight-forward and to the point.
My concern, however, is that if Jesus' mediatorship is necessary to reconcile them to the Father, then how is it that these were already in such good standing, as being the "Elect" of the Father? In other words, what does Christ's mediation do for them, that special Election hasn't achieved already? You could say, "Well, they were sinners in need of God's foregiveness, and Christ's Mediation brings them restoration," but even as such, they were already sufficient enough to be His "Elect."
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
No one is in the state of innocence after the fall in the Garden.
We're all under the curse of the law until effectually called and regenerated by the Word and the Spirit, by the grace of God.
God only gives His own to His Son after the Son's active and passive obedience which is then imputed to God's elect.
Justification is effected in the history of redemption by the incarnation, suffering and death of the Son on the cross.
You're conflating the Covenant of
Redemption (which is from eternity) with the Covenant of Grace (which plays out in time and history).
(If you don't like the sound of "God's elect" you are being more wise and more modest and more just than God Himself. You're doing what C. S. Lewis called 'putting God in the dock.' You're judging God from what you deem to be good and just and right. You just need to know that it is on-the-mark biblically to see all individuals as potentially elect. This is why Calvinists have been the most effective evangelists in history. We know we just have to proclaim the Word and God will make the call effectual in His elect. We can't know who they are, and that's not our business. We are called to spread the Word.)
"Yes, Christ is indeed our Mediator to the Father (as we both agree), but according to Calvinism, it is the Father who gives an "elect" group to His Son, who the Son then in turn mediates to the Father. Do you see the problem? The "Elect" in this case are already in good standing with the Father (resulting in their being given), and hence what does the Son's mediation really accomplish?"
The covenant between the Father and the Son has stipulations. The Son is to be born of a woman, accomplish what Adam failed to accomplish, and then beyond that also pay the price for Adam's failure which is death. Only then can the elect be justified. Before that active and passive obedience of Christ justification for sinners was not possible.
>Robert Shank, states: “Thus Christ’s ‘redemptive’ career--the incarnation, His death and resurrection, His ascension and intercession--are seen as incidental and symbolic, divine pageantry rather than authentic saving acts.”
This is just a not only dead wrong but really very silly reading of Reformed, Federal Theology.
You have to see that Calvinism is merely apostolic biblical doctrine unwatered-down, unnegotiated down to the demands of fallen man. Doctrine is practical. It effects internal states. When you accept biblical doctrine as it is it effects the internal reorientation from being man-centered to being God centered. Vanity, worldly pride, rebellious self-will (traits of the Old Man within) will accept anything short of God's sovereignty in grace. God is sovereign in creation, providence, *and grace.*
>My concern, however, is that if Jesus' mediatorship is necessary to reconcile them to the Father, then how is it that these were already in such good standing, as being the "Elect" of the Father?
Think of Adam in the Garden. Prior to his going against the command to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil he was in a state where he was not alienated from God (as fallen man is). What is the difference? The fall. The Covenant of Works God made with Adam was not fulfilled by Adam.
Jesus came to fulfill what Adam failed to fulfill.
All God's elect have/had Adam as their federal head. You are either 'in Adam' or you are 'in Christ.' Once effectually called and regenerated you then have Christ as your federal head (your King).
>In other words, what does Christ's mediation do for them, that special Election hasn't achieved already? You could say, "Well, they were sinners in need of God's foregiveness, and Christ's Mediation brings them restoration," but even as such, they were already sufficient enough to be His "Elect."
Adam himself, after the fall, was dead in sin and alienated from God with no ability to change that fact until Christ saved him. It's the same for all of God's elect.
And again: if the words "God's elect" grates on you ask yourself if you are not more good and just than God Himself in that you are much too self-effacing and modest and wise to ever begin to think you could be anything like 'elect' or that anyone could not have what you, a lowly, but modest, good person, should have. I mean, God is calling kings out of the world. Royalty. *Real* royalty in this case. At some point you stop dictating to God what is 'good' and 'right'.
Are you a Christian? Then you're a prophet, a priest, and a king. You're not a defense lawyer against God for the reprobate. You should be an evangelist for God to all human beings without distinction of elect or reprobate (which you can't know, it goes without saying). God takes care of His creation. A Calvinist saying: there will be nobody in hell who doesn't want to be there.
Hello Puritan,
Your post touches many subjects, but I'd like to focus on the point of this post. To recap, the whole point of mediation is that it attempts to bring two sides together, and when applied to a biblical setting, Christ’s mediation bridges sinners to the Father. The problem with Calvinism is that the “Elect” are already reconciled to the Father by special Election. Now someone might say, “No sir, Calvinism absolutely does not say that unbelievers are already secretly reconciled to the Father,” and yet one quote from John Calvin proves the contrary: “This way of speaking, however, may seem to be different from many passages of Scripture which attribute to Christ the first foundation of God’s love for us and show that outside Christ we are detested by God. But we ought to remember, as I have already said, that the Heavenly Father’s secret love which embraced us is the first love given to us.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.76, emphasis mine)
So my point was simple: There's nothing to mediate. They are already as "in" with the Father that they could possible be, especially evident when Calvin states: “…the elect always belonged to God…for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393)
That's my point. There's nothing of substance to mediate. The mediation is done. The reconciliation is already there. What exactly would Christ be mediating? That's precisely why Shank characterizes Calvinistic Election as purely "symbolism" and "pageantry," rather than an "authentic saving act." These are difficult points for Calvinism to have to face, and it seems like you tried to address it here when you wrote:
"Think of Adam in the Garden. Prior to his going against the command to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil he was in a state where he was not alienated from God (as fallen man is). What is the difference? The fall. The Covenant of Works God made with Adam was not fulfilled by Adam.
How is this relevant? You don't need to restate the Westminster. Just give a simple thought. For instance, I stated that Calvinist election makes a mockery of Christ's mediation because Calvinism's elect would already be eternally mediated, reconiled and favored by God and hence there would be nothing substantive left to mediate, and your response is that if we go back to the Garden of Eden, pre-Fall, then....what? You seemed to cut yourself off. What point were you trying to make?
Thanks in advance for your patience and keep it simple. No encyclopedias, just a simple straight forward answer.
The subject of election and reprobation is the subject of God's sovereignty regarding grace. God's sovereignty is summed up in his being sovereign in creation, providence, and grace. It is this third area of his sovereignty that is the most difficult for fallen man to accept. It is the stumblingblock for self-identified Arminians.
You use the term 'mediated' as a synonym for justified. Only the perfect passive and active obedience of the God-man Jesus Christ is the ground for justfication. The elect aren't justified from before the foundations of the world.
And all the elect are in need of justification. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous. All are dead in sin. All are Lazarus until Jesus call them from the tomb. Lazarus couldn't walk out of that tomb on his own will, only when Jesus called him.
>The problem with Calvinism is that the “Elect” are already reconciled to the Father by special Election.
The Fall of man is part of the plan of God. After the fall of man all men are in need of a Saviour.
The effectual call is made possible by Jesus' suffering and sacrifice on the cross. Without that there is no reconciliation between God and those who are 'in Adam', which is everybody.
When you are engaged in attempting to debunk something it is very necessary to know the subject you are attempting to debunk. You can't learn what Reformed Theology (Calvinism, Covemant Theology, Federal Theology) is by reading about it from the pens of Arminian theologians.
the puritan,
how do you know whether you are elected? You mention "effectual call". But you do not know what that is. It is just a theoretical concept, no Calvinist has been able to explain what the effectual call is. It can only be understood as the mystery between the state of a non-believer and the state of a believer. But you cannot know whether this "irresistible drawing" has ever occured to you. And hence you cannot tell whether you are among the elect. So Calvinism upholds a master-slave-relationship between man and God where the slave does not know what his master does. Such is clearly not Christ-centered.
Kehrhelm
Putting the Calvinist - any Christian - in the position of defending the experience of regeneration takes things out of a strictly theological discussion.
One can only say: if you don't know what regeneration is then engage the Word of God humbly. You can't regenerate yourself, but you can put yourself in the environment where regeneration potentially happens, the living Word of God.
The best advice any Christian can give is this: read the Bible complete. Absolutely, Genesis through Revelation complete. Every word, verse, chapter, and book. Make it a contained goal. Don't shirk. Get the complete Word of God into you so you have the complete language and it can potentially work in you. Don't expect to feel or experience anything as you are taking it in. Don't make demands on it. It's like planting a crop. If it grows in time and produces a harvest then so be it. It's God's doing. But God says move close to Him and He will move close to you. You do this by engaging his Word. Prayer doesn't hurt either.
As for the effectual call, it is the Word of God itself. God makes it effectual. To say a Christian can't know what it is is a statement one expects to hear on an atheist forum, frankly. To say no Calvinist has 'ever' explained what it is is not true. It's certainly not easy to explain regeneration to another human being, one has to go into biography and experience, but Calvinists have made this effort over the centuries. Read Thomas Boston or Jonathan Edwards. But it's not something one can nor needs to defend in a court of law. If you demand to be skeptical about something so be it. One can be equally skeptical about love and say it's fake or motivated by biological impulses or some other animal needs.
Regeneration is usually seen very clearly by a born again Christian as time passes and the Christian can see very clearly a before and after. Regeneration is not a hall of mirrors, and self-deception is not some overpowering force. We either value the Word of God or we don't. There are hypocrites to be sure, but they hardly make up the majority of Christians.
One thing a regenerated Christian knows is friction. Once regenerated a Christian is noticed by the world and the devil. And he is at war with his inner Old Man nature. This is a three-front war. The world, the flesh, and the devil. Regeneration marks you. Spiritual warfare commences.
Interest in influences changes as well. Desires change. Fears change (or disappear). What one values changes.
One thing that changes is this: Christians no longer freak you out. Even Christians whose practice you don't necessarily share. You have a love for the brethren as well.
Also, you're able to recognize something higher than 'you.' You're able to recognize that which is higher and real. That which created you is real and is higher than you. In a state of being unregenerate vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will recognize nothing higher then itself.
It's perhaps more difficult for people who grow up in active Christian families to discern a change, i.e. more difficult than for people like myself who didn't grow up in an active Christian family, but that is debatable. Having a new and real valuation for the Word of God is noticeable. Having a real sense of the need for the Saviour is noticeable. Having a new discernment for evil and the Kingdom of Satan and the illusions and vain fascinations of the world is noticeable. It's not a hall of mirrors...
Hey Puritan,
You wrote: “You use the term 'mediated' as a synonym for justified.”
No, I did not. You did. My point is that according to Calvinism, two sides come to Christ's Mediation table already reconciled, clearly evident when John Calvin states: “The elect,” while “far away,” that is, lost in sin, are regarded “in secret as His own” [i.e. coming to the able already reconciled].
Your point is that despite being "elect," they are not yet justified. My point is that given Calvin's admission, in reality, they are, as "the elect," already reconciled, being "in secret His own." Thus, according to Calvinism, the "elect's" justification through Christ's Mediatorship is just a technicality and a mere formality.
Again, I go back to the Garden. You just don't understand the fall and original sin. This is why to understand Calvinism you have to have a grasp of the 'whole' which is Federal Theology.
God's justice against all who are 'in Adam' had to be satisfied. Only Jesus work on the cross (and his work prior in following the law, i.e. doing what Adam faile to do) can effect this.
Your Calvin quote(s) don't vitiate justification at all.
Learn about Reformed - Federal - Theology from Reformed - Federal - theologians.
As for:
You quote me: >“You use the term 'mediated' as a synonym for justified.”
You respond: "No, I did not. You did."
I hardly did. I was correcting you and would hardly do what I was correcting you on now would I?
You've picked up on a meme from an Arminian theologian to attack Calvinism, but the problem is the meme is ridiculously off-the-mark. Again, if you are going to debunk something you have you have understanding of your subject. You can't get that by reading Arminian theologians.
If Jesus didn't pay the price God's elect would die in sin and experience eternal damnation. *There would be no ground for justification.*
Hey Puritan,
It's fruitless to argue about who said what about justification. So, let me back up just a bit and ask whether you agree with the following quote, yes or no:
Calvin states: “…the elect always belonged to God…for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393)
Do you agree with John Calvin that God regards certain unbelievers “in Adam” as “in secret…his own”?
Yes/No?
Richard, every Calvinist is a veteran of debating Roman Catholics and semi-Roman Catholics, and getting Calvin quotes out-of-context, but your quote doesn't even say what you are attempting to maintain that it says. Calvin is not talking about justification. Period. I.e. it's not even a good 'gotcha' Calvin quote.
I notice you don't cite the source, which probably means your Arminian writer didn't cite the source either. Cite the source and we'll get the context and I'll tell you what the subject is there.
Meanwhile the ground of justification is one thing and one thing only: the suffering and death of Jesus Christ as man on the cross. Without it there is no ground for justification.
By cite the source I mean give me where in the Gospel of John Calvin is commenting on.
Richard, what is your understanding of justification?
the puritan,
Concerning regeneration
There are many people who are believers, came to faith once upon a time but eventually doubt the reality of their conversion. They think they might not have truly been born again. What causes such doubts? Looking at oneself, comparing oneself to others, the weakness of the flesh? But the problem is very real. Often people cannot tell whether they experienced a new birth. They soon try to become "born again again". And again, if necessary. They simply seem to remain as they always used to be. No visible, convincing change whatsoever. No new habits. No new desires. They seem to be pretty much the old person.
And now the real problem becomes apparent: Calvinists cannot tell what actually the key to "true conversion" is, so that they could explain such "born again and again-ism" .
Do you tell those persons they shall pray more earnestly, seek God more sincerely, read the bible again or something like that? Not if the sermons of Mark Kieler, Paul Washer, John Piper, MacArthur, A.W. Pink and the like have meaning. For they say with one voice: It is only up to God. You cannot do anything by yourself. So what would you tell a person who seems to never make the jump over to true conversion? Are you answering: "If God so will, you will be enlightened and regenerated just like I once was?"
So what about those who keep sliding back? What about those who somehow never really change?
Puritan,
The quote came from John chapter 17:
Certainly he's not arguing that they are "justified," but instead that while they are "far away," that is, lost in sin (i.e. unjustified) "in Adam," they are "in secret...his own."
Here is the next quote. Do you agree with this one? (Yes/No?)
“This way of speaking, however, may seem to be different from many passages of Scripture which attribute to Christ the first foundation of God’s love for us and show that outside Christ we are detested by God. But we ought to remember, as I have already said, that the Heavenly Father’s secret love which embraced us is the first love given to us.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.76, emphasis mine)
Yes/No?
a helmet, I would say God hardens and well as awakens with His Word. If you are hardened towards God so be it. Notice the complaining in your voice? That is a sign of a vain, prideful, rebellious soul.
Your state of reprobration doesn't effect the integrity of God's plan.
We are the clay, God is the potter.
Having said the above, I gave you above, in a comment, something not many Christians would be able to give you. I gave you what you said Calvinists can't give you. I gave you a description of regeneration. You obviously didn't value it, but you did get it.
Richard, the problem with accessing Calvin's commentaries on the Gospels (at least via CCEL which is my only access currently) is they are all formatted in a way where you need a verse as well as chapter and book. So, what verse in John 17, and so to I'll need the same for the new quote. Context is rather important if one is being serious about what Calvin is saying or not saying.
the puritan,
"No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. And it is written in the prophets And they shall all be taught by God. Everybody who has heard and learned from the father comes to Me."
John The Evangelist 6:44-45
You say:
As for the effectual call, it is the Word of God itself. God makes it effectual.
That is not quite the calvinistic position. There is the general call (or outward call) that goes to everyone. But there is also the effectual call (or inward call, or irresistible call, preemptive regeneration), that is not invoked to everyone. This is actually one of the clearest teachings of Calvinism! The „effectual call“, or „inward call“ is something that obviously not everyone ever hears. And this was exactly my point: what is the effectual call. According to Calvinism it is not just the Word of God itself, as you are saying. Read Calvin! It is something special, something non-public. Okay, you say "God makes it effectual". Well, what does this mean? The question remains: what exactly happens here?!
The „effectual call“ (this term is a calvinistic invention by the way) is the drawing spoken of in v. 44. What exactly is this drawing, what is going on when a person is thus drawn? That is the real question. How do you experience this, what does God actually do here? Now what the drawing is, is explained in verse 45: it is the teaching from God, it is learning something from the Father. All who are converted have learned something special from the father. This special teaching is exactly the drawing action. The content of the teaching of v. 45 can be regarded as the access data to conversion, the password to heaven’s door. „hearing and learning from the father“ makes the difference between conversion and non-conversion. And here we go again: what is the content of that teaching of v.45? It is the key to conversion, that is clear. It is the „drawing by the father“ (v. 44) that is clear. But what is the content of the teaching? Now, you might claim to have heard and learned from God, have received the teaching from God that led to your conversion, have received the password to heaven, that made coversion effectual.
If so, then you can now subsequently share this! If you have received the access data to conversion, then you can now likewise publish these access data and thereby draw others exactly as you were drawn! You can surely share what you have received. The content of the teaching you received. Publish the „effectual call“!
Now the following is crucial. If you are a Christian, then Christ is in you. And the father is in Christ. And therefore even the father is in you. (See John 17:21-23 for instance). I’m not saying that the fullness of the father is in you now, but inasmuch as the father is in you, you can now do the works of the father! That is, you can draw others according to John 6:44-45, for this is what you reaped yourself. The key to conversion is the fruit you reaped yourself. And note, the fruit does not decrease by sharing it, neither does it deteriorate! Think about that! If you are a christian (=Christ in you, the Father in Christ => the Father in you), you are appointed a co-worker with God, you are appointed God’s co-savior. Become God’s co-savior! Reveal what you have been revealed!
It's certainly not easy to explain regeneration to another human being, one has to go into biography and experience, but Calvinists have made this effort over the centuries.
That is wrong! It must be explicable what regeneration is! As seen above, regeneration = drawing = teaching from God. So you receive revelation, knowledge of truth. All truth is from the father, and all true revelation originates with the father. But all truth from God is revealed by the logos. All truth is communicated by the logos, which means word but also reason, it is where the word 'logics' comes from. All revelation of God is by the logos. There is no truth ever revealed that by-passes the logos! The logos (word) can express all truth! All truth is communicated by the logos!
The point here is this: There is absolutely no truth, no revelation from God, that cannot be communicated, cannot be expressed in clarity! The logos is clarity!
Now if you are unable to explain regeneration to another human being, then the logos is not in you. But then Christ is not in you, for Christ is the logos. The truth is not in you and when you speak of regeneration, effectual call and the like, you don’t know what you’re talking about!
If the truth is in you, then Draw others as you were drawn!
You must be able to publish the key to conversion, become God’s co-savior, or else you don’t know whether you have ever been drawn at all!
Greetings
Kehrhelm
the puritan,
The best advice any Christian can give is this: read the Bible complete. Absolutely, Genesis through Revelation complete. Every word, verse, chapter, and book. Make it a contained goal. Don't shirk. Get the complete Word of God into you so you have the complete language and it can potentially work in you. Don't expect to feel or experience anything as you are taking it in. Don't make demands on it. It's like planting a crop. If it grows in time and produces a harvest then so be it. It's God's doing. But God says move close to Him and He will move close to you. You do this by engaging his Word. Prayer doesn't hurt either.
If you have found a precious lamp then you are to put this lamp on a lampstand so that everybody can see the light. The light is the revelation you received. The access data to heaven. What you are doing here is tell people how they might find such a lamp themselves. But if you have light, then share the light and don’t tell your fellows to find light for themselves. You are actually saying: "Do this and that and then you must come to the same result as I". No, no, it doesn’t work that way! Do the works of God, that you have been enabled to do! Draw others as you were drawn! If someone has captured a light then others don’t need to do this work again. Share the imperishable fruit you reaped!
Regeneration is usually seen very clearly by a born again Christian as time passes and the Christian can see very clearly a before and after. Regeneration is not a hall of mirrors, and self-deception is not some overpowering force. We either value the Word of God or we don't. There are hypocrites to be sure, but they hardly make up the majority of Christians.
Are you kidding? Sorry, but I hope that you do not mean that seriously. Are you judging according to the flesh? Do you look into the mirror everyday and say: "I, the puritan, am one of the good flock because I do this, that and avoid this, that" and so on? You say "we either value the word of God or we don’t". I, a helmet, tell you: If you cannot express the calvinistic "mystery of conversion" and love an unknowable god, then the logos (The word of God) is not in you at all! I, a helmet, testify, that you don’t know what you are talking about!
Kehrhelm (or a helmet, or...whatever your name is),
I've answered your questions (you seem to always admit this somewhere in the middle of your replies saying I havn't). Otherwise you tend to come across as an atheist demanding 'proof' of something as if one grows antlers once one is regenerated by the Word and the Spirit.
I also notice you didn't quote my entire comment where I certainly did describe regeneration for you. Read it again. Try not to take in everything through a knee-jerk filter.
Christ is our first love, the secret love God gave to us, and mankind is the bride (elect) God promises to the Son, for His loving obedience in willingly going to the cross. It was not an act of sympathy, but of commitment to His inerrant word which became flesh, fulfilling truth, through resurrected life eternal. Many are called, few are chosen. If you refuse the wedding invitation, how can you be chosen for marriage? Arguing over man's words is a futility God would never even engage in. What is to be, has been done and there is no error or confusion. It is done, finished, all sewn up. The only thing left is our choice to agree or disagree. Will you be attending the wedding, or will you be hurling rocks at the attendees? Do you agree with God, that you are redeemed or are you content to pontificate your brethren on the sidelines, while the the chosen elect bride, rests in Jesus? He died for the Calvinist and the Armenian too. If you are still in doubt, ask the prostitute or the crack-head that have agreed with The Yes and Amen of all mankind...Jesus Christ. They understand as little children, which is literally the only way we can come to Jesus. Matthew 18:3 "...unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of God." Many unfortunately think of this as just a pretty phrase with no particularly profound meaning behind it. They think of it as requiring some vague kind of simplicity. The Gospels show that Christ meant much more than that.
Acceptance of God's law, of His ideas of right and wrong as eternal and inflexible for all men, is required. Little children do this very well. And everyone who hopes for Heaven must follow their example. Those who do not, to their total astonishment in the next world, will find themselves fulfilling the negative side of this statement: they will not enter God's Kingdom. St.Paul said:"...be like children as far as evil is concerned, but in mind be mature." (1 Cor.14:20), Christ is not calling us either to a vague kind of simplicity or to simple-mindedness; quite the reverse. We are called to maturity, but a maturity that has not blinded itself to evil....to strict ideas of right and wrong, ideas held so clearly and easily by children.
Post a Comment