Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[unred typo]

I have a relative who recently turned to Calvinism.

What do any of you know of it? I've studied my KJV bible, and can not
make Calvinism agree with the teachings of Jesus.

Basically, my relative says there is no hope of being saved if you weren't
pre-elected.
He puts all the responsibility for those going to heaven, and those going to
eternal damnation, on God's shoulders.

After reading this thread, I am again feel I have waisted my time. Biblereader does not have a clue what Calvinsim teaches, and he thinks he is refuting it. Notice...

"Basically, my relative says there is no hope of being saved if you weren't
pre-elected."
* Has anyone ever heard a Calvinist talk like this? Never once in all my days have I heard any Calvinist use the term "pre-elected." With such terminology, you actually expect me to believe that this thread is bonafide?
* Biblereader says that his Calvinist relative believes "all the responsibility for those going to heaven, and those going to eternal damnation, on God's shoulders." I can only draw one of three conclusions.
1) Biblereaders is merely trash talking. With such gross misrepresentations of Calvinism, I actually consider the possibility that he has no Calvinist relative.
2) Biblereader actually has a Calvinist relative, but does not have the foggiest idea what the Calvinist relative is talking about, so he follows his own tradition which makes up straw men to define what Calvinists teach.
3) Biblereader has a hyperCalvinist relative. Neither one of them know the difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Classic Calvinism.

To set the record strait, Calvinism believes that man is responsible for his own condemnation. However, Calvinists do disagree with non-Calvinists in that Calvinists see salvation as totally the work of God for man. So therefore when we are accused of teaching:
"all the responsibility for those going to heaven . . .(is) on God's shoulders. To this part of Biblereaders charge... we plead guilty! In fact we will happily proclaim our guilt in blaming God for our salvation.

Beware, the Calvinist boogie man has been here. :crazyeyes:

I know you won't answer this, because you can't but I'm going to ask anyways.

Explain please how God could save any of us, yet not all of us, even though he could just as easily save all of us, is any different than a fireman who finds two brothers who had been playing with matches, and are trapped in the burning building, and could save both of them, yet chooses to save only one. Is this monster a hero?

 

[mondar]

I know you won't answer this, because you can't but I'm going to ask anyways.

Explain please how God could save any of us, yet not all of us, even though he could just as easily save all of us, is any different than a fireman who finds two brothers who had been playing with matches, and are trapped in the burning building, and could save both of them, yet chooses to save only one. Is this monster a hero?

In your illustration you picture two innocent little boys who deserve to be rescued. Of course this is the way you picture humanity and yourself. There is no moral rebellion in your theology but just a few accidental boo boos on the part of innocent mankind. You have a total failure to understand the sinfulness of sin, and how humanity is in rebellion against God. You actually do see sin as "2 little boys playing with matches" who innocently made a boo boo. Your non-Christian view of sin and mankind has nothing to do with Christianity. Let me give you an illustration that has to do with Christian theology.

There are 10 murders on death row. The governor pardons five of them. Is the governor unjust for not pardoning all 10?

 

[Drew]

There are 10 murders on death row. The governor pardons five of them. Is the governor unjust for not pardoning all 10?

I am not sure that this is a fair analogy and my past interactions with you on the subject of the very nature of "moral culpability" suggest to me that the position you advocate essentially gains its leverage by exploiting the reader's deeply ingrained sense that moral responsibility must entail freedom. Fine so far. However, you also claim that men are really born with no freedom of contrary choice. I submit that there is a "trying to slip one past the goalie" effect at work. On the one hand, you appeal to reader's innate sense of justice, entailing the power of contrary choice, while on the other hand later taking that very freedom away.

It is because these two "parts" of the "Calvinist" argument are often seperated in space and time that the reader does not see the problem here. Perhaps I am misrepresenting your position, although we have been through this before and I thought you had agreed that it was more or less "a mystery" as to how moral culpability can be successfully married together with the utter lack of freedom of contrary choice.

Let's return to your murderers and we will assume that they are all factually guilty. The reason your statement has a superficial appeal is that the reader assumes that the 5 who are not pardoned are indeed morally culpable for their crimes. Fine. If the Calvinist worldview really did allow us to make sense of how these 5 unpardoned are indeed culpable, you would have something.

But I think it clearly does not. If I understand your position correctly, you believe that all 10 murderers came into this world in a state that ensured that they would commit murder - they simply cannot "not commit murder". If this is so, then the very sense we ascribe to phrase "morally culpable" implodes into incoherence - the very reason why people feel it is "just" to execute murderers is that they implicitly assume that the murderer had the power of contrary choice.

Let me try to be clear: there is nothing "wrong" with claiming that people are born with a sin nature that guarantees that they will sin - I lean to believing this myself (Unred may take umbrage with this statement - let the games begin!). And there is nothing wrong with saying that the way the world works causes sin to lead to death / eternal torment - we have no "right" to think that eternal life is somehow our birthright.

However, and this is a big "however", it is indeed conceptually incoherent to say that this eternal torment is some kind of righteous moral judgement that is rendered to us based on our moral culpability. The problem is that moral culpability - as a concept - requires freedom of contrary choice.

 

[handy]

Drew,

You summed up exactly why I began to question Calvinism. If there God's wrath is justifiable, then it must be so because we willingly sin.

The Calvinist POV will point to Romans 9 in answer to this, but I think Romans 9 is best interpreted by examining people such as Judas Iscariot and Pharaoh. When we read the accounts of these two 'vessels of destruction' we clearly see that while they fulfilled things that had to be, they also made voluntary choices along the way.

 

[faithtransforms]

I know I am coming in late on this conversation. I am NOT a calvinist. However, I have to agree with the people who have stated that calvinism IS of the bible. There are a number of scriptures that point to calvinist doctrine, such as:

That God...

Draws people to Himself (John 6:44).
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48).
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed

Chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4).
As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love

Chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14).
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29).
For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake

Grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).
In humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

Calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9).
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to Wis own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began

Predestines us to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30).
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Predestines us to adoption (Eph. 1:5).
Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Predestines us according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).
In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will

Makes us born again not by our will but by His will (John 1:12-13).
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

These are strong arguments for predestination and I have struggled with this one. However, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Now you may not agree with the interpretation of the scriptures supporting calvinism, but it is clear to see how it is possible for calvinists to come up with the doctrine of predestination. I won't go into all the points of calvinism, but I think it is unfair to assume calvinists have no biblical basis for their beliefs.

 

[handy]

Hi there Faithtransforms, and welcome to the discussion. Very good post!

 

[Drew]

Drew,

You summed up exactly why I began to question Calvinism. If there God's wrath is justifiable, then it must be so because we willingly sin.

The Calvinist POV will point to Romans 9 in answer to this, but I think Romans 9 is best interpreted by examining people such as Judas Iscariot and Pharaoh. When we read the accounts of these two 'vessels of destruction' we clearly see that while they fulfilled things that had to be, they also made voluntary choices along the way.

I know this may sound a little dismissive but I will claim that a proper analysis of Romans 9 shows that it has absolutely nothing to do with the predestination of individuals to salvation or loss. It is about the election of Israel to play a specific role in the overall redemptive plans of God. I have presented this case elsewhere and I think it is basically overwhelming. We can discuss this further if you wish. But one cannot simply pretend that powerful arguments against the "pre-destination of individuals to salvation or loss" position on Romans 9 do not exist. They do and I have not seen any counterarguments to them yet. The evidence is overwhelming in my view - Romans 9 is about the election of Israel.

 

[Drew]

Now you may not agree with the interpretation of the scriptures supporting calvinism, but it is clear to see how it is possible for calvinists to come up with the doctrine of predestination. I won't go into all the points of calvinism, but I think it is unfair to assume calvinists have no biblical basis for their beliefs.

Hello and welcome. If you have read my posts, you know that I think that Calvinism, as it is often represented anyway, does not stand up to a careful and global analysis of the Scriptures. But I do agree with what you post here - there certainly are texts that support the Calvinist view, at least to a superficial reading. Now I happen to think that a more careful reading shows otherwise, but I certainly would not say that the Calvinists do not have a position that is credible, at least at the point from which one launches into a more comprehensive and careful analysis.

 

[mondar]

Hello and welcome. If you have read my posts, you know that I think that Calvinism, as it is often represented anyway, does not stand up to a careful and global analysis of the Scriptures. But I do agree with what you post here - there certainly are texts that support the Calvinist view, at least to a superficial reading. Now I happen to think that a more careful reading shows otherwise, but I certainly would not say that the Calvinists do not have a position that is credible, at least at the point from which one launches into a more comprehensive and careful analysis.

Drew, I believe in another thread, I am still waiting to see any exegetical flaws in the Calvinist understanding of John 6:44. In fact it has been so long, I forget what thread you made that promise in.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Mon Nov 19, 2007:
In your illustration you picture two innocent little boys who deserve to be rescued. Of course this is the way you picture humanity and yourself. There is no moral rebellion in your theology but just a few accidental boo boos on the part of innocent mankind. You have a total failure to understand the sinfulness of sin, and how humanity is in rebellion against God. You actually do see sin as "2 little boys playing with matches" who innocently made a boo boo. Your non-Christian view of sin and mankind has nothing to do with Christianity. Let me give you an illustration that has to do with Christian theology.

There are 10 murders on death row. The governor pardons five of them. Is the governor unjust for not pardoning all 10?

Eating a piece of forbidden fruit is no worse than playing with forbidden matches. Are we more sinful for being raised in a sinful world and following Satan than Adam who was raised by God himself in a perfect world, and chose to sin? Nevertheless, let me use your example.

If the convicts are unrepentant and still bent on murder, the governor is unjust in pardoning any of them. In fact, if they are cold blooded murderers, he would be guilty of murder if they killed more people after he released them. The Bible says that he that slays the innocent and he that pardons the guilty are both an abomination to him. Are you seriously suggesting that God does what he finds disgusting?

The fact is that if a man is in rebellion against God, he is not submitted to the Lordship of Christ, is not trusting him as his savior nor following in the way of everlasting life. Such a man is not saved and will not be until and unless he repents.

Whether he does this because he thinks he has been chosen and elected to do so, or whether he believes that he has free will to do it, is irrelevant to the fact that he must repent. If a man is striving to become saved from eternal fires by following Christ, he is only doing what the Bible exhorts him to do. If he sins and believes it ultimately doesn’t matter to his salvation, he will not put the significance on it that Jesus himself did. What you teach is completely contrary to what Jesus taught. Jesus and Paul both taught that a man is going to be judged by his works to determine his eternal destiny. Luke 18:26-30, Romans 2:6-9. So did Peter. 1 Peter 1:14-17. And James, James 1:20-22. As did John; 1 John 2:15-17. And Jude, Jude 1:3-4, 20-21.

When will you repent and believe that the gospel that Jesus commanded his followers to teach is the gospel that he wants you to follow? Matthew 28:19-20.

 

[unred typo]

For those who don’t have time to look up those verses in my last post, I have copied them here below:

Luke 18:26-30
26And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
28Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed you.
29And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that has left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
30Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Romans 2:6-9
6(God,) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

1 Peter 1:14-17
14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be you holy in all manner of conversation;
16Because it is written, Be you holy; for I am holy.
17And if you call on the Father, who without respect of persons judges according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

James 1:20-22
20For the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God.
21Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
22But be you doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

1 John 2:15-17
15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides for ever.

Jude 1:3-4
3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
20But you, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Matthew 28:19-20
19Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

To read them in context, you can go to http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ or http://www.blueletterbible.org/

 

[stovebolts]

I am still waiting to see any exegetical flaws in the Calvinist understanding of John 6:44.

I would be very interested in seeing the Calvinistic exegesis on John 6:44 and I would also be willing to submit my exegesis on the scripture as well, redaction included.

 

[Drew]

I am still waiting to see any exegetical flaws in the Calvinist understanding of John 6:44.

I would be very interested in seeing the Calvinistic exegesis on John 6:44 and I would also be willing to submit my exegesis on the scripture as well, redaction included.

In the next week, I hope to post an analysis of John 6:44 in the "Calvinism and Arminianism" thread. It will be several posts in length.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Hi,
I'm new to this forum but not new to this subject. First to answer the question...Yes the T.U.L.I.P. of Calvinism is scriptural in the sense that it was developed from scripture interpretation. There are many scriptures that teach us of predestination "election" which is the main topic of the T.U.L.I.P. However there are also many scriptures that speak of making a choice to receive God's gift of salvation. Calvinists are quick to point out that free will is a myth, even though scripture teaches it.

Wikipedia
“Calvin was trained to be a lawyer. He studied under some of the best legal minds of the Renaissance in France. Part of that training involved the newer humanistic methods of exegesis. His legal and exegetical training was important for Calvin because, once convinced of the growing Protestant faith, he applied these exegetical methods to the Scripture. He self-consciously tried to mold his thinking along biblical lines, and he labored to preach and teach what he believed the Bible taught.â€Â

Contrary to what Calvin teaches, predestined election and human choice can exists in harmony.

God Bless

 

[Drew]

Contrary to what Calvin teaches, predestined election and human choice can exists in harmony.

Hello and welcome to the forums. Can you please explain how you see these two concepts as existing in harmony?

 

[mondar]

GraceBwithU,
Welcome to the board, I am the lone Calvinist here. There are a few other Calvinists that pop in from time to time, but this board is mainly made up of either anti-Calvinists, or moderate like yourself. Be careful, many of the anti-Calvinist are not Arminians, but they are Pelagian. Pelagianism is a heresy from the 4th Century. It was condemned in strong terms by the council of Chalcedon. Later semi-pelagianism was more mildly condemned at the council of Orange. Some here actually go beyond the pelagian heresy into saying that works is a necessary part of salvation. I dont think even Pelagius would have said that. His issue was more a denial of original sin (sin nature in todays terminology). Some here deny sin nature also.

You, as most moderates, have not begun to actually wrestle with the issues (please excuse the offensiveness of that statement). Moderates really do not understand what Calvinists are saying. They dont understand Calvinist terminology. One of the problems in understanding Calvinism is the tradition of moderates to clump classic Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists all in the same pot. The two theologies are very distinct. Such books as Norman Geislers "Chosen but free" use the term "extreme Calvinism." Geisler is an Arminian, but calls himself a "Calminian" or a moderate Calvinist. Yet what Geisler is saying is completely Arminian. Well, enough of the names. Lets move on to your post.

However there are also many scriptures that speak of making a choice to receive God's gift of salvation.

This would be the first example of your incorrect assumptions concerning what Calvinism teaches. The term "Choice" is totally insufficient because Calvinist believe that man must make a "choice." There are no classic Calvinists that deny choice, that is a hyper-Calvinist position. So far, no Calvinist would disagree with that statement. The problem is that you equate making a choice with free will.

Calvinists are quick to point out that free will is a myth

Calvinist do not associate the idea of "choice" with the idea of free will. The concept of free will in the Calvinist mind means that one can make a decision of faith without the assistance of Gods drawing (see John 6:44). No there is also the concept of irresistible grace. Calvinists believe that this drawing is infallible, and always successful (Notice John 6:37). So then, the question of the Calvinist, is not is there choice. The question is is our choice from our own ability, or is God sovereignly behind our choice. When you believed, did God arrange the circumstances? Did he bring the gospel message into your life at the exact right moment when circumstances prepared you to believe? Had God done any work in your heart to prepare you for this conversion? The pelagian says no. The arminian says yes, but the arminian says this work is done for the whole world. The Calvinist says that God has chosen an elect people and does this work upon the elect so that he might save them totally by his grace.

The Calvinist sees our own choice, the Calvinist sees our own personal faith as a part of Gods grace. Only in this way is salvation totally by grace. This is the Calvinist doctrine of sola gratia (salvation by grace alone). If human faith is outside the work of Gods grace, then salvation would be by Grace and Faith. Man and God then make a joint effort to save man. Only Calvinist doctrine makes salvation wholly the work of God for man, and not in any way the work of man for God. Salvation, is then a divine undertaking, and not a joint effort.

Contrary to what Calvin teaches, predestined election and human choice can exists in harmony.

Actually, the term Calvinist is a very wierd name for the theology. It is also unfortunate. Calvin was not the first to teach the concept of predestination and election. He was very late in the line of Calvinist teachers. Nevertheless, your statement above is not contrary to what Calvin taught. CAlvin taught that some humans were chosen to make a certain choice. You could even say that Calvin taught that the choice was freely made according to the nature of the person and the work of God.

I hope to have more of a dialogue with you later.
Mondar

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Wed Nov 21, 2007:
GraceBwithU,
Welcome to the board, I am the lone Calvinist here. There are a few other Calvinists that pop in from time to time, but this board is mainly made up of either anti-Calvinists, or moderate like yourself. Be careful, many of the anti-Calvinist are not Arminians, but they are Pelagian. Pelagianism is a heresy from the 4th Century. It was condemned in strong terms by the council of Chalcedon. Later semi-pelagianism was more mildly condemned at the council of Orange. Some here actually go beyond the pelagian heresy into saying that works is a necessary part of salvation. I dont think even Pelagius would have said that. His issue was more a denial of original sin (sin nature in todays terminology). Some here deny sin nature also.

You, as most moderates, have not begun to actually wrestle with the issues (please excuse the offensiveness of that statement). Moderates really do not understand what Calvinists are saying. They dont understand Calvinist terminology. One of the problems in understanding Calvinism is the tradition of moderates to clump classic Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists all in the same pot. The two theologies are very distinct. Such books as Norman Geislers "Chosen but free" use the term "extreme Calvinism." Geisler is an Arminian, but calls himself a "Calminian" or a moderate Calvinist. Yet what Geisler is saying is completely Arminian. Well, enough of the names. Lets move on to your post.
However there are also many scriptures that speak of making a choice to receive God's gift of salvation.

This would be the first example of your incorrect assumptions concerning what Calvinism teaches. The term "Choice" is totally insufficient because Calvinist believe that man must make a "choice." There are no classic Calvinists that deny choice, that is a hyper-Calvinist position. So far, no Calvinist would disagree with that statement. The problem is that you equate making a choice with free will.
Calvinists are quick to point out that free will is a myth

Calvinist do not associate the idea of "choice" with the idea of free will. The concept of free will in the Calvinist mind means that one can make a decision of faith without the assistance of Gods drawing (see John 6:44). No there is also the concept of irresistible grace. Calvinists believe that this drawing is infallible, and always successful (Notice John 6:37). So then, the question of the Calvinist, is not is there choice. The question is is our choice from our own ability, or is God sovereignly behind our choice. When you believed, did God arrange the circumstances? Did he bring the gospel message into your life at the exact right moment when circumstances prepared you to believe? Had God done any work in your heart to prepare you for this conversion? The pelagian says no. The arminian says yes, but the arminian says this work is done for the whole world. The Calvinist says that God has chosen an elect people and does this work upon the elect so that he might save them totally by his grace.

The Calvinist sees our own choice, the Calvinist sees our own personal faith as a part of Gods grace. Only in this way is salvation totally by grace. This is the Calvinist doctrine of sola gratia (salvation by grace alone). If human faith is outside the work of Gods grace, then salvation would be by Grace and Faith. Man and God then make a joint effort to save man. Only Calvinist doctrine makes salvation wholly the work of God for man, and not in any way the work of man for God. Salvation, is then a divine undertaking, and not a joint effort.

Contrary to what Calvin teaches, predestined election and human choice can exists in harmony.

Actually, the term Calvinist is a very wierd name for the theology. It is also unfortunate. Calvin was not the first to teach the concept of predestination and election. He was very late in the line of Calvinist teachers. Nevertheless, your statement above is not contrary to what Calvin taught. CAlvin taught that some humans were chosen to make a certain choice. You could even say that Calvin taught that the choice was freely made according to the nature of the person and the work of God.

I hope to have more of a dialogue with you later.
Mondar

IOW, if the Bible taught that you should eat an apple a day to be healthy, Calvinism would teach you that it must be applesauce and spoon fed to you. Hyper-Calvinists would say that it is all you should eat and it must be tube fed to your stomach in a hospital. Both are agreeing with the Bible that you should eat an apple a day, but what they teach has little to do with what the Bible said about apples and your health. What Arminians, or Pelagians make of it, is like comparing apples to oranges. What we should teach is what the Bible teaches, no matter how simple it sounds.

Calvinists read the Bible, then they peel it, core it, cook it to mush and serve it as the real deal. Babies and toothless old geezers love it. I don’t know what label Mondar has affixed to my forehead but I’m sure it won’t stick. I don’t have the benefit of an extensive theological background to confuse and astound the reader with my terminology, I just read the Bible and explain it as clearly as I see it. He doesn’t seem to like that. In fact, you will notice he grudgingly answers my posts, when he even condescends to do so. I think it’s because when presented with real food, Calvinism has no teeth.
:-D

 

[Drew]

Some here actually go beyond the pelagian heresy into saying that works is a necessary part of salvation.

Will our works justify us? Yes, they will and it is no heresy to teach this. Consider:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

These texts are from Romans 2. Many from the reformed tradition basically argue that in Romans 2, Paul is talking about a hypothetical class of persons that do not really exist and he is expounding about how we would be saved by works if we could be saved by works. But, of course, we cannot. This view seems extremely dubious since Paul never hints that he is speaking about "the way things are not". I think we need to take Paul at his word in Romans 2.

As we do when he says things like this from Ephesians 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

At a surface reading, there appears to be a contradiction with the Romans 2 stuff. But what if the conventionally accepted wisdom about what Paul means by "works" is actually incorrect? I am convinced, in fact, that Paul means something other than "good works" in this text (and others). I quote NT Wright:

His (referring to another theologian) proposal about the meaning of ‘works of the law’ in Paul – that they are not the moral works through which one gains merit but the works through which the Jew is defined over against the pagan – I regard as exactly right. It has proved itself again and again in the detailed exegesis; attempts to deny it have in my view failed

If Wright is right (pun intended), then the apparent contradiction goes away and the stuff in Romans 2 still can be read "as is".

Here is a key point: Just because I take Paul at his word in texts like Romans 2 does not mean that I have man earning his own salvation through works. The best way I can explain it is this: it is God's Spirit working in us that is the only "agent" that can legitimately be given be credit for the works that indeed do justify us on the last day as Romans 2 teaches. To steal again from Wright: the works-based verdict of the last day is "brought forward" into the present and we can know in the present who will be justified on the last day - those who have faith. To repeat: when we place our faith in Jesus in the present, we are given the Spirit that then produces the works by which we will be justified.

So we do not really justify ourselves and it is simply false to suggest that "justification by works" means that we can "take the credit for it".

I would advise all readers to treat use of the word "heresy" with some caution. It is a word with a certain degree of rhetorical punch and even though I will credit mondar with using it in its responsible way, it can serve as a "thought-stopper". Why? Because people uncritically confer infallibility to the person who concluded a certain view was heresy. I am sure that the views of the Reformers were called "heresy" at some time.

And also please consider the following: The Reformer's writings are not inspired scripture - scripture is inspired scripture. Sometimes I get the impression that some place the Westminster Catechism above the writings of St. Paul.

 

[mondar]

GraceBwithU,
I hope you read the 2 posts by Drew and unred above. I made the accusation that Pelagians (or worse) exist in this forum. Do their posts leave any doubt in your mind that the word "heresy" applies? What do you think? Yes, I used the word "heresy," but that word is not my own, but that of the early Church in the council of Chalcedon, and Orange. I think after Drews post I can rest my case in defining the issues as not Calvinism vs Arminianism. The issues here involve Pelagianism or worse. GraceBwithU, maybe you will not side with Calvinism. Thats OK, I do not expect anyone here to take the Calvinist tag as I have. That is not the issue. The issue of Calvinism (without the tag) is that I hope we can agree that Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christs substutionary death alone. That is the issue! I see human works as contributing only filthy rags to our salvation. Drew and unred see mankind as having the moral and spiritual ability to save themselves with some assistance from Christ.

Again, I ask no one to take the Calvinist tag. I hope someone agrees that it is heresy to deny that salvation (or justification) is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christs shed blood alone. Do you follow the gospel of human works, or the gospel of Christs substutionary shed blood?

 

[handy]

I'll let Drew speak for himself, but I don't think that what he is saying is necessarily Pelagianism. Pelagianism denies original sin and promotes the idea that man can be saved upon his own righteousness. In Pelagianism, one has the ability to decide, "I will be a good person and follow God and He will love me". What I think Drew is getting at, and I tend to agree with him, is that when one is born-again by the Spirit, the evidence of that saving grace is always shown forth in the works that we do.

Mondar you said, and I agree wholehearted with you, "I hope we can agree that Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christs substutionary death alone."

Yes, I agree with that.

But, as it's been pointed out, especially by James, that we show our faith by our works. It seems as though Calvinists deny that anything that any man can do can ever be righteous, but the Bible doesn't teach this at all. What the Bible (and the correct Calvinist) teaches is that unregenerate man cannot by his supposed righteousness ever work his way into heaven. However, the Bible also teaches that righteouness can be even should be the characteristic of those born of the Spirit.

If we say we love God, but live lives totally devoid of righteousness, then there is something seriously amiss with our confession.