Adrian Rogers has two quotes that I'd like to highlight:
Adrian Rogers explains: “In Adam, we became the enemies of God, deserving His wrath. ... Everyone who remains in Adam will face the wrath of God. ... In Adam we sin and collect our wages (death), but in Christ we are forgiven and collect our free gift (eternal life). This is the much more of God’s grace. ... Make sure today that you have abandoned Adam and accepted Jesus. There is much more in Him, both now and for eternity.” (Foundations for our Faith, Vol.II, A Study In romans Chapters 5-9, pp.15, 17)
Rogers adds: “When you lay your sins upon Jesus, you become a child of the King, righteous in His sight, and justified by His blood. Friend, we gain much more in Christ than we ever lost in Adam.” (Foundations for our Faith, Vol.II, A Study In romans Chapters 5-9, p.16)
Humanity is subdivided into two camps: In Adam and In Christ. Either you remain lost In Adam, or become saved In Christ. However, Calvinism inevitably introduces a third federal headship: In the Father, where the lost “elect” are simultaneously In Adam and In the Father
, as John Calvin explains:John Calvin writes: “First he points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it. Christ says that the elect always belonged to God. God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, not by faith, nor by any merit, but by pure grace; for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393)
43 comments:
The Father has given the Son the elect, upon the Son performing His part in the Covenant of Redemption.
Yes, God the Father has given a way for the elect to be redeemed. It's called free grace.
This doesn't in any way though make of no account all mankind being fallen in Adam, and your Calvin quote which you continually refuse to give the context of, and which you are knawing on like a dog with a bone, in no way negates the fact that all have sinned and are in Adam as a result of the fall - and in need of the work and sacrifice of the Saviour for redemption.
It's called Federal Theology, it is Calvinist/Reformed Theology, and you need to learn it before you attempt to debunk it.
1) I'ved explained the reality of Calvinism: an essential third federal headship: In the Father, where the lost elect are simulaneously in Adam and in the Father, which is a complete impossibility. Thus, Calvinism is in big trouble, right out of the gate.
2) As for more complete quotes, go get them yourself. If you are too poor to buy your own books, then go stand under a bridge and hold up a sign that you need money.
3) The paradox with Calvinism is that it claims that certain people are "in secret" God's own possession, and yet are lost and separated from God. That's the paradox, and Calvinism simply cannot get out of its own way. It's a mess.
For more quotes demonstrating the third essential federal headship of Calvinism: In the Father, here is a lot more quotes as well:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/CalvinistElection.html
The following article has been linked to this post:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/ac_pageantry.html
You're obviously reluctant to provide context or even a citation because you are using the decontextualized quote for dishonest purposes. Prove me wrong.
Someone take up a collection for Puritan.
Nevertheless, you don't understand Federal Theology. You have no grasp or even knowledge of the Covenant between the Father and the Son or between the Father and Adam. You merely have an internet level grasp of 'bad old Calvinism' and you are seeking to impress your church leaders (or whoever)...
For those who are interested in seeing additional quotes from Calvin on the subject of Calvinism's essential third federal headship, see here:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/CalvinistElection.html
Here is some of the context from the book Richard is quoting from:
* * * * * * *
"They were yours; you gave them to me." First he points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it. Christ says that the elect always belonged to God. God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, not by faith, nor by any merit, but by pure grace; for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own. The certainty is in his committing everyone he has chosen to the guardianship of his Son, that they may not perish. That is where we must look if we are to be certain that we are among God's children. In itself the predestination of God is hidden, but in Christ alone it is revealed to us. pg. 393, (Calvin's commentary on John published in the Crossway Classic Commentaries series edited by Alister McGrath and J. I. Packer)
* * * * * * *
The larger context of course is the very work of sacrifice and death Jesus is undergoing as he is saying the prayer he is saying, which Calvin is commenting on in this 17th chapter of the Gospel of John.
Now notice the portion Richard has left out: "First he [Jesus] points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it." This is Jesus talking not Calvin.
"Christ says that the elect always belonged to God." Christ says it, not Calvin.
"God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, not by faith, nor by any merit, but by pure grace;" That grace being the sending of His Son to do what the first Adam failed to do, and then to pay the penalty for Adam's failure which was death. Without this the elect aren't given to the Son by the Father, and their state is in no way or sense 'redeemed' or 'justified', and hence to say they are "federally" in the Father with any kind of benefits that would imply is to pervert God's plan of redemption beyond mutilation.
Now we get to Richard's very surgically clipped quote:
"for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own."
How?
"The certainty is in his committing everyone he has chosen to the guardianship of his Son, that they may not perish."
The very work of sacrifice of His Son in performing what the first Adam failed to perform and then willingly going to the cross to pay the price of death for God's elect.
How does that contradict anything that I've stated?
>>That grace being the sending of His Son to do what the first Adam failed to do, and then to pay the penalty for Adam's failure which was death. ***Without this the elect aren't given to the Son by the Father, and their state is in no way or sense 'redeemed' or 'justified', and hence to say they are "federally" in the Father with any kind of benefits that would imply is to pervert God's plan of redemption beyond mutilation.***<<
The part about: "Without this the elect aren't given...." Is that part of Calvin's quote? Or is that something you are just adding?
Richard, this is why context is inconvenient. It is the context of what you quoted, and beyond that it is the context of the very chapter of the Gospel of John Jesus is speaking in. Jesus' work on the cross; the elect being given to the Son by the Father based on the Son performing his part in the covenant of grace.
The fact is, Calvin acknowledges the inevitability of a third federal headship when he states: "...while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.”
** Far away **
--> implies the federalship "in Adam".
** regards them in secret his own**
--> implies the federalship "in the Father" with the *benefit* of being appointed a specific time & date to receive an irresistible grace * because* the Father regards them as His own. That's their benefit under their federalship "in the Father." Seems pretty conclusive.
My point is that you invented a quote for Calvin's "context" that he never stated.
The knowledge and understanding of Calvinism, or, Reformed Theology (Classical Covenant - Federal - Theology)- names which are just necessary identifying names for apostolic biblical doctrine - again, the knowledge and understanding of it that you are missing is the role of the covenants within Federal Theology. You can't understand a Calvin quote - or any Reformed Theologian's quote - until you have a grasp of Covenant - Federal - Theology; especially not a Calvin quote taken out of its necessary context (or any theologian's quote that is taken out of its context for that matter).
The bottom line here for the point you are attempting to plaster on the Calvin quote you used out of context is to claim that election from eternity puts fallen man under 'federal headship' of God the Father in any way that suggests or approaches or hints at redemption or justification *without* the work of the Son Jesus Christ on the cross mutilates God's plan of redemption beyond recognition, and it is just this that you were cutting out from Calvin's commentary. The very text of Scripture itself Calvin is commenting on gives the context, Richard.
Richard writes:
--> implies the federalship "in the Father" with the *benefit* of being appointed a specific time & date to receive an irresistible grace * because* the Father regards them as His own. That's their benefit under their federalship "in the Father." Seems pretty conclusive.
Richard, you have just described the free grace of the Covenant of Grace. It doesn't occur though without the sacrifice and willing death of the Son Jesus Christ on the cross. It is all the doing of Jesus Christ. Welcome to Christianity, Richard!
But you are still abusing the term 'federalship' when you apply it as you do to the Father vis-a-vis the elect from eternity. The elect are not in 'covenant' with the Father as that suggests. See, this is about Covenant Theology, Richard. It is the Covenant of Works the elect are in - through Adam - with the Father, and that was broken, by Adam, incurring the penalty of death on God's very own elect through Adam man'd federal head. It took the sacrifice and willing death of the Son Jesus Christ - which is the Covenant of Grace made between the Father and the Son (the elect now being 'in' the Son) to save the elect.
And, yes, it is all of free grace, Richard, which is not a 'gotcha' to any Christian who understands the Gospel. What wasn't inevitable, Richard, was the self-sacrifice of the Son of God, doing His Father's will, for the elect. I mean by that, the Son had to do it for the elect to be saved, but He could have backed out and left the elect to an eternity of alienation from the Father. He didn't. The Son made the sacrifice. It is all Jesus' doing, and none of mine, or yours, or anybody else's. Christianity 101, Richard.
The main confusion in what you are trying to attribute to Calvin is that God the Father never puts the elect in covenant with Him but through Adam or through Christ. The Covenant of Redemption made from eternity is between the Father and the Son with the elect being represented in the Son; and the Covenant of Work in the garden is made between the Father and Adam, with the elect and all mankind being 'in Adam', federally speaking.
All through these recent posts I've spoken of 'the elect', which is not off-the-mark, but Calvinists tend to say 'sinners' until redeemed by the precious blood of the Saviour, Jesus Christ.
You wrote: "The elect are not in 'covenant' with the Father as that suggests."
Absolutely amazing.
There's a term for what you are doing. It's called, "Special Pleading":
1. Law. pleading that alleges special or new matter in avoidance of the allegations made by the opposite side.
2. pleading or arguing that ignores unfavorable features of a case.
To recap, according to Calvinism: the "elect" are in secret the Father's "own," with the result that they receive the membership benefits of being 1) secretly loved, 2) secretly purchased at Calvary 2000 years ago, and 3) secretly appointed a time/date to receive irresistible grace.
But we shall not permit this to be deemed a covenant under the federal headship of the Father, in spite of what it "suggests."
For the "elect" who will someday receive their irresistible grace, you cannot put them under the federal headship of "in Christ," because there is no such thing as an unbeliever in Christ.
Additionally, you cannot put these under the federal headship of Adam, because according to Calvinism, the lost elect are 1) secretly purchased at Calvary, in contrast to the rest of those in Adam, as well as having the membership benefit of a time/date to receive irresistible grace. So they cannot simply be lumped in with every other unbeliever in Adam.
So according to your theology, you have a square peg and two round holes, neither of which will fit your scenario. Hence, a third federal headship of being secretly "in the Father." You can insist that there is another way around this, but thus far, you have not been able to demonstrate it.
My goodness, Richard, the covenants are Revelation. To say the elect are only in covenant with the Father through Adam or through Christ and that there is no other covenant that puts the elect in covenant with the Father is not special pleading or any other fallacy, it is simply stating what Scripture states.
Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology.
Perhaps you don't understand that the Bible speaks of covenants, and they aren't just some theological term that can be applied at will to this, that, or the other as we please.
Richard, try to see that you don't currently have knowledge or understanding of Federal Theology. To understand Calvin you have to understand such things as I've written. It shouldn't be a problem to admit you don't yet know something.
I've laid out your dilemma, and for you to say that I just don't get it, doesn't solve your problem.
>I've laid out your dilemma, and for you to say that I just don't get it, doesn't solve your problem.
Richard, since you are denying Scripture itself I didn't think there would be much profit in going through your 'dilemma' you've laid out.
Admit that you don't know the first thing about Covenant Theology and hence about Reformed Theology. It's OK. Don't allow your desire to debunk something to override accepting that you have run into your own ignorance of the subject. Ignorance is OK, it can be cured.
>For the "elect" who will someday receive their irresistible grace, you cannot put them under the federal headship of "in Christ," because there is no such thing as an unbeliever in Christ.
But of course they are still in Adam until regenerated by the Word and Spirit, Richard.
>Additionally, you cannot put these under the federal headship of Adam, because according to Calvinism, the lost elect are 1) secretly purchased at Calvary, in contrast to the rest of those in Adam, as well as having the membership benefit of a time/date to receive irresistible grace. So they cannot simply be lumped in with every other unbeliever in Adam.
Here is where you are simply contra Scripture. The elect - sinners - need the work and sacrifice of the Saviour, Richard. Need it. Can't be redeemed or justified or adopted into God's family or anything else other than eternal alienation from God without it. This is why in Christianity, Richard, there is so much celebration of Jesus Christ. We are lost without Him. He is called 'Saviour' for a reason.
>So according to your theology, you have a square peg and two round holes, neither of which will fit your scenario. Hence, a third federal headship of being secretly "in the Father." You can insist that there is another way around this, but thus far, you have not been able to demonstrate it.
Again, you are using the term 'federal headship' as if it is a made up theological phrase with no connection to Scripture. There simply is NO covenant that the Father has made with the elect that doesn't go through Adam or Christ. It doesn't exist. You are not debunking Calvinism in all this, Richard, you are attempting to debunk Scripture's use of covenant, i.e. God's use of covenant in His plan of redemption.
You wrote: “There simply is NO covenant that the Father has made with the elect that doesn't go through Adam or Christ.”
You used a double negative, so I will parse your words in order to find an affirmation: You’ve just affirmed that the Father has a covenant with the elect which is “through Adam or Christ.”
So in one place you stated: "The elect are not in 'covenant' with the Father as that suggests." Now you are saying that is a covenant. Are you having trouble getting your story straight?
Richard, pick up a good Reformed systematic theology. Then take on Reformed Theology. Your last comment is too silly to take seriously.
Or, you should pick up a book on Reformed systematic theology so that you can get your story straight, because you plainly contradicted yourself. You cannot make up your mind on whether they are in covenant with the Father or not.
Here's another one of your statements: "The elect - sinners - need the work and sacrifice of the Saviour, Richard. Need it. Can't be redeemed or justified or adopted into God's family or anything else other than eternal alienation from God without it."
Again I cite Calvin, "...while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.”
So now you are back to contradicting Calvin. Your initial defense was to say that I had taken him out of context, and the "evidence" that you supplied was a statement in BOLD that Calvin never stated.
Now you can't make up your mind on whether the elect are in covenant with the Father or not, on the one hand insisting that it's a covenant "through Adam or Christ," but not really a covenant despite what it "suggests."
Your entire defense thus far is best described as debris.
Here’s another one of your quotes: “To say the elect are only in covenant with the Father through Adam or through Christ and that there is no other covenant that puts the elect in covenant with the Father is not special pleading or any other fallacy, it is simply stating what Scripture states.”
From the debris, let’s highlight this one snippet: “…the elect are only in covenant with the Father through Adam or through Christ…”
However, elsewhere you state: “The elect are not in ‘covenant’ with the Father as that suggests.”
This is what I mean, when I say that you cannot get your story straight. What’s obvious at this point, is that the reason why you are tripping over your own words is because you are simply spewing jargon. However, I don’t want to make “you” the issue. The issue is not your limitations, but whether or not the Father has a special covenant, via a Deterministic Decree, where an elect group are eternally “in the Father,” just as we speak of Christians being “in Christ.” When Calvin states that the elect “always belonged to God,” and that while the elect are “far away” (meaning lost), they are “in secret His own,” Calvin is highlighting what he believes is a special covenant that God the Father has with this group, which results in them being given to His Son. This concept, however, has a significant challenge, because it reduces the saving role of Christ, as the following Calvinist displays in his own thoughts:
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.”
See, this is the problem. Calvinism’s “in the Father” relationship that God the Father allegedly had from eternity with the “elect,” runs square into the problem of minimizing the role of Christ as Savior, as just displayed, especially when Calvin reinforced the matter by stating that the lost “elect” were actually in secret, God’s own possession. This is why Calvinism is so fundamentally flawed.
My goodness, Richard, you are not even trying to discuss in good faith. Notice how you have to take everything out of context to even make your silly arguments. You're doing it with my statements now.
Anybody reading this thread can sort it out.
But, once again, when the subject is Reformed Theology you have to have a grasp of how God is in covenant with man. And Scripture is the basis for that. God tells us how we are in covenant with Him.
It's not a subject that is easy to grasp, Richard; you have to make a good faith effort with real sources beyond the internet, but not everybody attempts to debunk Calvinism as you are doing from an angle of attack such as you are attempting. You've now had it explained to you the context of what not only Calvin in his commentary but what Jesus Himself is saying in that 17th chapter of the Gospel of John. You obviously don't react well to being corrected.
You wrote: “You've now had it explained to you the context of what not only Calvin in his commentary but what Jesus Himself is saying in that 17th chapter of the Gospel of John.”
1) I never took Calvin out of context, and when I asked proof of your claim, you came back with a quote in *BOLD* that wasn’t anything that Calvin stated! It was just your own convoluted reasoning that directly contradicted Calvin, which you declared as Calvin’s “context.” When called out, you shifted gears and tried to insist that it was actually context of the Bible passage in which Calvin was citing. So whether you realize it or not, it's you who have been completely disingenuous.
You wrote: "Notice how you have to take everything out of context to even make your silly arguments. You're doing it with my statements now."
2) It's pefectly fair for me to demonstrate how you are contradicting your own meaningless jargon, in order to show that you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about. I'll cite it again:
You wrote: “To say the elect are only in covenant with the Father through Adam or through Christ and that there is no other covenant that puts the elect in covenant with the Father is not special pleading or any other fallacy, it is simply stating what Scripture states.”
Yet, elsewhere you state: “The elect are not in ‘covenant’ with the Father as that suggests.”
Besides this being meaningless jargon, you can't even get it straight.
Richard, this is my last post.
RICHARD WRITES:
>You wrote: “To say the elect are only in covenant with the Father through Adam or through Christ and that there is no other covenant that puts the elect in covenant with the Father is not special pleading or any other fallacy, it is simply stating what Scripture states.”
RICHARD CONTINUES:
>Yet, elsewhere you state: “The elect are not in ‘covenant’ with the Father as that suggests.”
Besides this being meaningless jargon, you can't even get it straight.
My statement is taken ridiculously out of context. Here is the paragraph you lifted it from:
>But you are still abusing the term 'federalship' when you apply it as you do to the Father vis-a-vis the elect from eternity. The elect are not in 'covenant' with the Father as that suggests.
I.e. Richard, the elect are not on covenant with the Father from eternity in any way that doesn't invovled the Son and the covenant between the Father and the Son (the Covenant of Redemption).
MY PARAGRAPH CONTINUED:
>See, this is about Covenant Theology, Richard. It is the Covenant of Works the elect are in - through Adam - with the Father, and that was broken, by Adam, incurring the penalty of death on God's very own elect through Adam man'd federal head. It took the sacrifice and willing death of the Son Jesus Christ - which is the Covenant of Grace made between the Father and the Son (the elect now being 'in' the Son) to save the elect.
In Covenant Theology the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are connected in that the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Redemption as it plays out in time, in the history of redemption. (Just for the record.)
So the line of mine you lifted was simply saying my main point: you can't say Calvin is posing a 'third federal headship' between the elect and the Father because Calvin is saying there - his context and Jesus' context in that 17th chapter of the Gospel of John - is the Covenant of Redemption itself which puts the elect in covenant with the Father ONLY through the Mediator Jesus Christ.
Botton line, Richard: you don't know what you are talking about, and you're too vain and childish to accept that you don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe find another subject for your debunking fever, Richard.
By the way, sorry for raining on your party by finding the context of your Calvin quote. But you know, decontextualized quotes are the life of the party for immature theologians and debunkers, and you're always vulnerable that somebody will come along and supply context. Especially on the internet. You should think about having a closed website with only anti-Calvinist invited. You'll have much more fun...
You wrote: "I.e. Richard, the elect are not on covenant with the Father from eternity in any way that doesn't invovled the Son and the covenant between the Father and the Son (the Covenant of Redemption)."
1) Do you have a problem with the English language? This is the kind of unintelligible drivel that marks your writing style. You obviously have no idea what on earth you are trying to say, but you are trying to fake it with jargon.
You wrote: "...you can't say Calvin is posing a 'third federal headship' between the elect and the Father because Calvin is saying there - his context and Jesus' context in that 17th chapter of the Gospel of John - is the Covenant of Redemption itself which puts the elect in covenant with the Father ONLY through the Mediator Jesus Christ."
2) FACT: You have invented "context" from Calvin that he never stated!, and therefore you have utterly failed to prove your claim that I had taken him out of context.
You wrote: "By the way, sorry for raining on your party by finding the context of your Calvin quote."
3) You didn't find any context. You made it up out of whole cloth. When I asked if it was Calvin's words, you refused to acknowledge your dishonesty.
Here is the exchange:
Richard Coords said...
How does that contradict anything that I've stated?
October 31, 2008 10:04 AM
The Puritan said...
>>That grace being the sending of His Son to do what the first Adam failed to do, and then to pay the penalty for Adam's failure which was death. ***Without this the elect aren't given to the Son by the Father, and their state is in no way or sense 'redeemed' or 'justified', and hence to say they are "federally" in the Father with any kind of benefits that would imply is to pervert God's plan of redemption beyond mutilation.***<<
October 31, 2008 10:08 AM
Richard Coords said...
The part about: "Without this the elect aren't given...." Is that part of Calvin's quote? Or is that something you are just adding?
October 31, 2008 10:18 AM
The Puritan said...
Richard, this is why context is inconvenient. It is the context of what you quoted, and beyond that it is the context of the very chapter of the Gospel of John Jesus is speaking in. Jesus' work on the cross; the elect being given to the Son by the Father based on the Son performing his part in the covenant of grace.
Rather, what is "inconvenient" for you, is telling the truth.
You wrote: "you're always vulnerable that somebody will come along and supply context."
4) Truly remarkable. You didn't "supply" context; you made it up, and then refused to acknowledge it.
You wrote: "You should think about having a closed website with only anti-Calvinist invited. You'll have much more fun..."
5) I've had more fun watching you make a monkey of yourself.
>FACT: You have invented "context" from Calvin that he never stated!, and therefore you have utterly failed to prove your claim that I had taken him out of context.
You can't see the context because you don't understand what Calvin is saying. You don't know the first thing about how God is in covenant with man or what the Bible says on the matter. You don't understand Reformed Theology. Again, find another subject for your debunking fever, Richard. Try crop circles.
You wrote: "You can't see the context because you don't understand what Calvin is saying."
You made up "context" and called it "Calvin's" words. That makes you an unrepentant liar.
True or false: The following statement are Calvin's words, representing his context:
"***Without this the elect aren't given to the Son by the Father, and their state is in no way or sense 'redeemed' or 'justified', and hence to say they are "federally" in the Father with any kind of benefits that would imply is to pervert God's plan of redemption beyond mutilation.***"
Answer: False. "Puritan" completely made it up, and labled it "Calvin's" words, and used that as a basis to say that I had taken John Calvin out of context.
It's a summation of Calvinist - Reformed - doctrine on the subject Calvin is touching on in your quote.
Carry on, Richard.
At least you fessed up that your "summation" wasn't Calvin's words.
I never said or gave the impression I was quoting Calvin, Richard. I was giving you a summary of Reformed Theology, i.e. Calvinism, which you call 'jargon'. Richard, crop circles...they need debunking...
You wrote: "I never said or gave the impression I was quoting Calvin, Richard."
So now you admit that you have no statement from Calvin from within the context to back up your charge that I had taken him out of context. Seriously, how much more pathetic can you be?
I quoted Calvin. You are showing signs of mental illness now, Richard. I'll leave you to yourself now.
Dear Richard:
Let me add a couple thoughts.
First, God calls predetermined events, acts that are intended, versus acts actually accomplished.
"God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." (Rom. 4: 17)
The chosen were in the Father only by a predetermined choice to, in time, actually place them within himself.
To be "in" the Son is to be in the Father. (Col. 3: 3) To be in the "bosom" of Christ is to be in the "bosom" of the Father.
Blessings,
Stephen
Hello Stephen,
Yes, I agree that "to be 'in' the Son is to be in the Father."
In fact, an even more explicit verse than Col. 3:3 is 1st John 2:23-24: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."
However, the reason why I felt that Calvinism must inevitably conclude that "the elect" are eternally "in the Father," is if they were eternally His possession and His "elect," in a way that results in their being predestined to glory. In other words, if everything that the elect have "in time" (as you put it), flows from the source of eternal election, then what are they really gaining "in time? In other words, everything that they obtain "in time," would simply be a manifestation of what they already have...in the Father. But I understand your point, and that of "Puritan's", insomuch that "the elect" are not yet redeemed and justified, until such "time" as they receive the fulfilment of the ordained benefits of such an election.
Let me address this question. Where did I ever come up with the concept that "the elect" must inevitably be eternallt "in ther Father"? The answer is that Calvin taught that God had a people, that God had a flock, and that God will save this flock, this people, in time. Well, if they are already eternally "in the Father's flock," then how far of a cry is it, to simply say that they are "in the Father"? So that's the origin of that.
There is no third federal headship. There are only two: Adam and Christ. Christ is the federal head of the elect. Adam is the federal head of fallen humanity.
The elect are fallen in Adam but redeemed in Christ. The reprobate remain in Adam and never receive the federal headship of Christ over the elect.
Hello Charlie,
Thanks for commenting.
Here was the verse in question:
1st John 2:24: “If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.”
Consider the following quotes:
John Calvin writes: “Paul further confirms this, declaring that God was moved by no external cause; He Himself and in Himself was author and cause of our being elected while yet we were not created, and of His afterwards conferring faith upon us.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.69)
Calvin writes: “Then, when Paul lays down as the unique cause of election the good pleasure of God which He has in Himself, he excludes all other causes.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.69)
Calvin writes: “Christ therefore is for us the bright mirror of the eternal and hidden election of God, and also the earnest and pledge. ... We see here that God begins with Himself when He sees fit to elect us....” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.127)
Calvin adds: “The calling is therefore a certain and specific calling, which seals and ratifies the eternal election of God so as to make manifest what was before hidden in God.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.70)
Calvin writes: “First he points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it. Christ says that the elect always belonged to God. God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, not by faith, nor by any merit, but by pure grace; for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393)
Calvin writes: “Christ certainly counts none among His own, unless he be given by the Father; and He declares those to be given who before were the Father’s (ibid. 17:6).” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.147)
Calvin writes: “God has chosen His own to be holy and without blame (Eph 1:4).” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.134)
In other words, if the "elect" are elected "to be" in Christ (as is the C interpretation of Eph 1:4), then by what were "the elect" members of the elect in the first place, if not in some way, "in the Father"?
Post a Comment