How do Calvinists know, that they have eternal life ?

[ivdavid]

Let's look at the sequence of events. Let's say the Spirit is not yet at work in a particular person - can this man accept the Word of God what you've said so far, I'm inclined to believe you'd say NO.

No, you guessed right...The word must be presented first (Romans 10:14--How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?) The Spirit works through the word and convicts the unbeliever, and so on.

I think you misunderstood the question - I've underlined the scenario I'm considering. Let's say that an evangelist preaches the Gospel and an as yet unsaved person hears it. Suppose the Spirit does not work in him, will such a man be able to accept the Word of God preached by that evangelist?

 

[glorydaz]

Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them? A simple and direct question to which a simple and direct answer would suffice.


And what does the phrase, "die in your sins" mean here?
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
If all the sins of every man, unbeliever too, are already effectively forgiven, what sins are these unbelievers going to die in?

It would be the sin of unbelief. The prison doors are opened by Jesus' work on the cross, the bands have been loosed, but some don't believe and so they sit there in a cell with an open door. (Acts 16). It's the same with the serpent on the stick. The Jews were bitten by poisonous snakes (sin). They had only to LOOK, and they would be saved.

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

 

[ivdavid]

Also consider Eze 36:22, Rom 9:15 to see it's dependent on God's will and His will alone.

Christ came to die on the cross,for ALL men, not just the elect spoken about by Calvin.

I absolutely don't see any direct relevance between your response and my statement - so I'm assuming you missed what I was trying to say.

You were saying that God saves man because He sees some worth in man. I quoted Eze 36:22 to show that God does not save us for our own sake, but for His Holy Name's sake. He sees nothing in us to come and save us - He does it for His Name's sake alone.

And you were saying that God has mercy because He sees something in man worthy of mercy. And I said that by definition itself, mercy is not based upon the one receiving it. This is also affirmed by Rom 9:15.

And you were saying God loves man because He sees something in man worthy of such love. This defeats the very purpose of unconditional love - which you assent to - and which implies that God's love is based on nothing in man. Contradictions?

So help me see the validity of your argument here.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Grubal Muruch,

I find it in the best interests of our discussion for you to first give working definitions of what you mean by -

a) sins
b) works
c) good
d) bad
e) forgiveness

Thank You.

a) sins----deliberate disobedience to the law of God (plural sense of the meaning)
b) works--actions that seek to bring about a good result and perhaps achieve acceptance. (plural sense)
c) good-- in the spiritual sense, an act which brings honor and glory to God. in the earthly sense, an act of
kindness, making the right choice (morally speaking) are two "good" examples.
d) bad---making wrong, moral,spiritual, or ethically choices. and acting upon those choice's.
e) forgiveness---the ability to dismiss a transgression and no longer hold negative feelings, judgments, and retribution against the perpetrator of the trangression...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I absolutely don't see any direct relevance between your response and my statement - so I'm assuming you missed what I was trying to say.

You were saying that God saves man because He sees some worth in man. I quoted Eze 36:22 to show that God does not save us for our own sake, but for His Holy Name's sake. He sees nothing in us to come and save us - He does it for His Name's sake alone.

And you were saying that God has mercy because He sees something in man worthy of mercy. And I said that by definition itself, mercy is not based upon the one receiving it. This is also affirmed by Rom 9:15.

And you were saying God loves man because He sees something in man worthy of such love. This defeats the very purpose of unconditional love - which you assent to - and which implies that God's love is based on nothing in man. Contradictions?

So help me see the validity of your argument here.

you said---You were saying that God saves man because He sees some worth in man.

Grubal--Logically speaking, God saw so much worth in man, (God so loved the world) that He sent His Son to die for their sins, thereby creating an ability for Him (God) to forgive man of ALL his sins, and make a place for man in the heavenly's.

you said---And you were saying that God has mercy because He sees something in man worthy of mercy.

Grubal---I don't believe I worded it that way, but in either case, God's Love transcends our ability to understand why, He could look beyond our sins and still Love us enough to send His Son to die for us. He could have just judged our sins and sent us into everlasting torment. But, He loved us so much that He instead, made a way for us to be not only forgiven, but prepared a place for us with Him.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I think you misunderstood the question - I've underlined the scenario I'm considering. Let's say that an evangelist preaches the Gospel and an as yet unsaved person hears it. Suppose the Spirit does not work in him, will such a man be able to accept the Word of God preached by that evangelist?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If one "hears" the word, the Spirit uses that word to convict that persons heart. But, we have a free-will issue that has an involvement in this "scenario." By saying, "Suppose the Spirit does not work in him will such a man be able to accept the Word of God preached by that evangelist?" Your essentially sitting up a situation where the Spirit isn't doing that which, He was sent to do...I'll let you answer that one...

 

[glorydaz]

You were saying that God saves man because He sees some worth in man. I quoted Eze 36:22 to show that God does not save us for our own sake, but for His Holy Name's sake. He sees nothing in us to come and save us - He does it for His Name's sake alone.

This prompts one to ask what "His Name's sake" means. If you say He sees nothing in us to come and save us, then I would have to disagree. Out of all God's creation, man alone is made in the image of God. He is our Father. We know God's name is Holy. His atributes are love and truth. If we are worth nothing to God, why were we "bought with a price?" A great price.

"That they might be unto me for a people, and for a name...." For His namesake?

For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

For His namesake?

And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.

By sending His Son to die to save even the worst of mankind, God shows forth His nature by His power, justice, love, faithfulness and truth. He did it to vindicate His name from those who call Him cruel, capricious, and a tyrant.

Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

God's namesake? Jesus Christ...

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[ivdavid]

Grubal Muruch,

Thank you very much for those working definitions. I was operating on quite different definitions than those you hold - and hence the persistent disconnect. Perhaps we could start discussing these first -

a) sins----deliberate disobedience to the law of God (plural sense of the meaning)

Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?

c) good-- in the spiritual sense, an act which brings honor and glory to God. in the earthly sense, an act of kindness, making the right choice (morally speaking) are two "good" examples.

What do you call an earthly act of kindness that does not bring honor and glory to God?

Given that "good" and "bad" are opposites, the opposite of "good" ie an act which does not bring honor and glory to God must be considered "bad", right?

b) works--actions that seek to bring about a good result and perhaps achieve acceptance. (plural sense)

By "good result", am I to assume that these actions seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

What would you call actions that do not seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

Thank you again.

 

[ivdavid]

glorydaz,

I don't see any inherent worth of man in any of those verses you've quoted - all seem to point to what God does and His glory. As I recollect reading elsewhere in these forums(perhaps I'm mistaken) - man derives his worth from what God has purposed in him - and this I'd wholeheartedly agree to. But what led God to purpose something in man is not based on any inherent worth in man - for all worth is derived from God alone.

So again, if you're saying that God desires to work out His glory in man - then that's of His own will and purpose - don't make it out to be something He saw in man that has inclined Him into such works in man.

 

[ivdavid]

By saying, "Suppose the Spirit does not work in him will such a man be able to accept the Word of God preached by that evangelist?" Your essentially sitting up a situation where the Spirit isn't doing that which, He was sent to do...I'll let you answer that one...

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying that the Spirit does not do such works. I am only trying to explore the nature of man - for which I'm asking you to consider certain scenarios that may not be so in reality.

So, "Suppose the Spirit does not work in him will such a man be able to accept the Word of God preached by that evangelist?"

 

[ivdavid]

God's Love transcends our ability to understand why, He could look beyond our sins and still Love us enough to send His Son to die for us. He could have just judged our sins and sent us into everlasting torment. But, He loved us so much that He instead, made a way for us to be not only forgiven, but prepared a place for us with Him.

Ah yes, this makes more sense to me. You look at God's abundant love for us when He need not have any - and you suppose that this implies God sees something in man for Him to have such love.

All I'm saying is that God could choose to have such love for us without needing a reason in us at all - unconditional love. Do you need a reason in your neighbor to love him? Do you need to find some worth in your neighbor to love him? Just the same, God loves us because He loves us - of His own will and purpose, not of some inherent worth in man. And of course, His love for us and His subsequent works in us out of such love, does impart worth to man - but this is derived of God, not inherent.

I guess we don't have much disagreement on this - would you say?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them? A simple and direct question to which a simple and direct answer would suffice.


And what does the phrase, "die in your sins" mean here?
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
If all the sins of every man, unbeliever too, are already effectively forgiven, what sins are these unbelievers going to die in?

you say----And what does the phrase, "die in your sins" mean here?
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
If all the sins of every man, unbeliever too, are already effectively forgiven, what sins are these unbelievers going to die in?[/QUOTE]

Grubal says----We know that the "sin" question was taken care of at the cross. (All sin) John 8:24 has Jesus saying, " I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." The answer to your question is actually quite simply and logical. Christ was speaking at this time, to the Jews and had not yet, gone to the cross to take care of the sin question. Remember also that Christ (in the Gospels) is speaking specifically to the Jews. The Gentiles were approached later because the Jews rejected Christ.

 

[glorydaz]

glorydaz,

I don't see any inherent worth of man in any of those verses you've quoted - all seem to point to what God does and His glory. As I recollect reading elsewhere in these forums(perhaps I'm mistaken) - man derives his worth from what God has purposed in him - and this I'd wholeheartedly agree to. But what led God to purpose something in man is not based on any inherent worth in man - for all worth is derived from God alone.

So again, if you're saying that God desires to work out His glory in man - then that's of His own will and purpose - don't make it out to be something He saw in man that has inclined Him into such works in man.

I'm not making it out to be something He saw in man that has inclined Him, but that He created man in His image to be His sons and bride. It's not like He saw something worthwhile in man, but that He created something worthwhile in man.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Grubal Muruch,

Thank you very much for those working definitions. I was operating on quite different definitions than those you hold - and hence the persistent disconnect. Perhaps we could start discussing these first -


Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?


What do you call an earthly act of kindness that does not bring honor and glory to God?

Given that "good" and "bad" are opposites, the opposite of "good" ie an act which does not bring honor and glory to God must be considered "bad", right?


By "good result", am I to assume that these actions seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

What would you call actions that do not seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

Thank you again.

you say---- I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Grubal----In order to give an accurate answer I would ask you to be more specific in the question. OK (are you speaking of the ten commandments or ?)

you say----What do you call an earthly act of kindness that does not bring honor and glory to God?

grubal----First of all, "any" act of kindness or good that an "unbeliever" does, is considered a "dead work." It not only does not bring glory to God but, it does not benefit the "unbeliever" Spiritually...

you said----Given that "good" and "bad" are opposites, the opposite of "good" ie an act which does not bring honor and glory to God must be considered "bad", right?

Grubal----If we're talking about the unbeliever, his good work is considered a "dead work" and not Spiritually beneficial, as I alluded to before.

you said----By "good result", am I to assume that these actions seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

Grubal----Not quite certain what your asking here ? I need more specifics??

you said----What would you call actions that do not seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

Grubal----From a Christian standpoint, 1 Corinthians 10:31 pretty much answers what we should be doing--- ("Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.") If it's "not to the glory of God",then it's not Spiritually beneficial to God or us...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying that the Spirit does not do such works. I am only trying to explore the nature of man - for which I'm asking you to consider certain scenarios that may not be so in reality.

So, "Suppose the Spirit does not work in him will such a man be able to accept the Word of God preached by that evangelist?"

The Holy Spirit is essential therefore, cannot be taken out of the scenario...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Ah yes, this makes more sense to me. You look at God's abundant love for us when He need not have any - and you suppose that this implies God sees something in man for Him to have such love.

All I'm saying is that God could choose to have such love for us without needing a reason in us at all - unconditional love. Do you need a reason in your neighbor to love him? Do you need to find some worth in your neighbor to love him? Just the same, God loves us because He loves us - of His own will and purpose, not of some inherent worth in man. And of course, His love for us and His subsequent works in us out of such love, does impart worth to man - but this is derived of God, not inherent.

I guess we don't have much disagreement on this - would you say?

We are God's creation and were made in the image of God (the Bible says) God's love is far superior than ours. As humans we find it more difficult to love the "unlovable." Someone pulls over in front of us on the freeway, is that person easy to love ? Your neighbor talks behind your back to other neighbors, is he easy to love ? There's different scenarios we could come up with to show that our (human love) does not quite match up to God's love...God sent He's Son to die on the cross for the "unlovable." That shows a "special love."

 

[ivdavid]

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

In order to give an accurate answer I would ask you to be more specific in the question. OK (are you speaking of the ten commandments or ?)

I think you accidentally misquoted my question here while responding to the right one -
ivdavid - "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

I am speaking of whatever law of God you meant here -
Grubal Muruch - "a) sins----deliberate disobedience to the law of God (plural sense of the meaning)"

Actually, if you could answer your own question and be specific about what law of God you meant here, it would help avoid ambiguity later.

And why does my original question depend upon what law of God we're referring to - it's simply a question on accountability - does that differ based on the law? I think you can answer my initial question without getting held up on these.

Given that "good" and "bad" are opposites, the opposite of "good" ie an act which does not bring honor and glory to God must be considered "bad", right?

If we're talking about the unbeliever, his good work is considered a "dead work" and not Spiritually beneficial, as I alluded to before.

Do you have a variable definition of what "good" is - where it means one thing to a believer and another thing to an unbeliever? If so, can that be called a definition?

Grubal Muruch - " Also, what various definitions to the same words have I used ? Lets see if they truly are contradictions or perhaps you have misunderstood what I was trying to convey."
I guess this would count as one place where I see a variable 'definition'.

And as I said, going strictly by definitions, the opposite of good is bad, right? So the opposite of good - ie an act which does not bring honor and glory to God - (by the believer/unbeliever, it does not matter to me who, since we're dealing with acts and not the doer of such acts) - such acts must be "bad", right?

I guess you'll have to first clarify whether you do define "Good" differently for a believer and for an unbeliever - a simple yes/no here would suffice.
If Yes, then you'll have to list out the separate definitions for each group, else I'll just keep tripping over the ambiguities.

By "good result", am I to assume that these actions seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

Not quite certain what your asking here ? I need more specifics??

Specifics? I'm just trying to get clarifications on what you've written -
Grubal Muruch - "b) works--actions that seek to bring about a good result and perhaps achieve acceptance. (plural sense)"

So, what does the "good" in "good result" mean here? And if there are again variable definitions, list them out separately as "Works of the believer means..." and "Works of the unbeliever means..."

What would you call actions that do not seek to bring about honor and glory to God?

From a Christian standpoint, 1 Corinthians 10:31 pretty much answers what we should be doing--- ("Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.") If it's "not to the glory of God",then it's not Spiritually beneficial to God or us...

I simply wanted to know what the 'word' was for these actions in your dictionary, if there is one? In other words, I'm asking you what the opposite of "Works" is according to you. And I'm guessing you'd call them "dead works", right?

 

[ivdavid]

If all the sins of every man, unbeliever too, are already effectively forgiven, what sins are these unbelievers going to die in?

The answer to your question is actually quite simply and logical. Christ was speaking at this time, to the Jews and had not yet, gone to the cross to take care of the sin question.

Hmm...alright. If you, Grubal, feel that my questions are forcing you into conclusions, we can simply stop discussing. You are not obligated to continue a discussion at all. I'd rather have you say "you don't know" to something than be forced into concluding erroneously for the sake of responding.

If your answer hinges on the actual timeline of Christ's death on the cross, then Christ must have addressed this to everyone - believer and unbeliever. But in John 8:24, he says only the unbelievers will die in their sins, implying that the believers would not. Your timeline argument fails here.

Also, Jesus should have addressed only those unbelievers who would die before Jesus' death for your interpretation to be valid - but that's not derived from John 8:24.

Have all the OT saints died in their sins? Your timeline argument implies so.

Remember also that Christ (in the Gospels) is speaking specifically to the Jews. The Gentiles were approached later because the Jews rejected Christ.

What distinction is there between jew and gentile with respect to Jesus' redemptive work?

 

[ivdavid]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying that the Spirit does not do such works. I am only trying to explore the nature of man - for which I'm asking you to consider certain scenarios that may not be so in reality.

So, "Suppose the Spirit does not work in him will such a man be able to accept the Word of God preached by that evangelist?"

The holy Spirit is essential therefore, cannot be taken out of the scenario...

Are you evading the question? I've made it clear that in reality the Spirit's working is absolutely necessary - I'm exploring through argument, the nature of man. It's not to conclude against the working of the Spirit.

And since you vehemently and rightly state that the Spirit is essential, I take it that man cannot accept the Word of God without the working of the Spirit. Why do you think that is? Specifically, what role does sin play in such inability of man to accept God's word?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I think you accidentally misquoted my question here while responding to the right one -
ivdavid - "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

I am speaking of whatever law of God you meant here -
Grubal Muruch - "a) sins----deliberate disobedience to the law of God (plural sense of the meaning)"

Actually, if you could answer your own question and be specific about what law of God you meant here, it would help avoid ambiguity later.

And why does my original question depend upon what law of God we're referring to - it's simply a question on accountability - does that differ based on the law? I think you can answer my initial question without getting held up on these.


Do you have a variable definition of what "good" is - where it means one thing to a believer and another thing to an unbeliever? If so, can that be called a definition?

Grubal Muruch - " Also, what various definitions to the same words have I used ? Lets see if they truly are contradictions or perhaps you have misunderstood what I was trying to convey."
I guess this would count as one place where I see a variable 'definition'.

And as I said, going strictly by definitions, the opposite of good is bad, right? So the opposite of good - ie an act which does not bring honor and glory to God - (by the believer/unbeliever, it does not matter to me who, since we're dealing with acts and not the doer of such acts) - such acts must be "bad", right?

I guess you'll have to first clarify whether you do define "Good" differently for a believer and for an unbeliever - a simple yes/no here would suffice.
If Yes, then you'll have to list out the separate definitions for each group, else I'll just keep tripping over the ambiguities.


Specifics? I'm just trying to get clarifications on what you've written -
Grubal Muruch - "b) works--actions that seek to bring about a good result and perhaps achieve acceptance. (plural sense)"

So, what does the "good" in "good result" mean here? And if there are again variable definitions, list them out separately as "Works of the believer means..." and "Works of the unbeliever means..."


I simply wanted to know what the 'word' was for these actions in your dictionary, if there is one? In other words, I'm asking you what the opposite of "Works" is according to you. And I'm guessing you'd call them "dead works", right?

you say---- "Would you then say that a person who transgresses the law of God without knowing it at that point in time - but later realizes it - is not guilty of the same and need not bear this iniquity?"

Grubal----In the beginning, before the law came (ten commandments) man wasn't held accountable to the law, because there wasn't any. Man was judged by his works. The believer that transgresses the law (sins) is not accountable to the law but Grace alone. Due to the fact his sins were taken care of at the cross...Granted, he may want to confess his sin to the Father. And may want to go out and, make right, the wrong he did...That would be the right thing to do...

you say----Actually, if you could answer your own question and be specific about what law of God you meant here, it would help avoid ambiguity later.

Grubal----We'll just stick to the Ten commandments on this subject I suppose...

you say----Do you have a variable definition of what "good" is - where it means one thing to a believer and another thing to an unbeliever? If so, can that be called a definition?

Grubal---A definition of doing "good" for the believer would be, something that brings glory to God, and at the same time brings joy here on earth and reward in Heaven to the believer...The "unbeliever" does something considered good, and only receives the appreciation of his fellow man and a good feeling about himself, but, no glory goes to God and no rewards in the afterlife...

you say----And as I said, going strictly by definitions, the opposite of good is bad, right? So the opposite of good - ie an act which does not bring honor and glory to God - (by the believer/unbeliever, it does not matter to me who, since we're dealing with acts and not the doer of such acts) - such acts must be "bad", right?

Grubal----An unbeliever can do good acts and bad acts. A believer can do good acts and bad acts. The difference is, (as I've said before) the believers good acts bring glory to God, where the good acts of the unbeliever are considered "dead works" and of no Spiritual benefit for God or the unbeliever... the unbeliever receives whatever reward he gets, from the world not from God...Unbelievers, good acts are not bad, there just of no Spiritual significance...

you said----So, what does the "good" in "good result" mean here? And if there are again variable definitions, list them out separately as "Works of the believer means..." and "Works of the unbeliever means..."

Grubal----I think your having difficulty grasping the idea that it depends on which side of the coin your on. If your an "unbeliever" the good you do, does not benefit you or God. If you happen to be a "believer" then the good you do is, to the glory of God (through the Spirit within) One "good" has earthly benefit, the other 'good" has "Spiritual" benefit."

you said----I simply wanted to know what the 'word' was for these actions in your dictionary, if there is one? In other words, I'm asking you what the opposite of "Works" is according to you. And I'm guessing you'd call them "dead works", right?[/QUOTE]

Grubal----Works are an action that takes place to achieve a positive goal. The Christian's goal is to serve and bring glory to God, and to show love to his neighbor...The "unbelievers" goal is to bring the glory back to himself or sometimes to relieve a guilty conscience if he does not do the work...