So, I finally finished the chapter on Unconditional Election. Did I mention that the chapter was 165 pages in length? Since it is so long, I could not do justice to the chapter in one, two or even more blog posts.The summary of the chapter I will try to give is this: and I quote (that's what the little quotation marks mean), "The basic error of Calvinism is confounding election and predestination with salvation." The basic premise, in my words, is that whenever those words are used, the individual 'salvation' of the person is not in question, but rather the results: Predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ means that the believer was fore-ordained to become conformed to His image - not that the person was fore-ordained to believe.
The last section of the book was on infant baptism. I was surpised to find out that according to Vance - who would have used as much ammo as he had in his arsenal - many Calvinists are actually quite against the idea that an infant that dies in infancy is actually not part of the "elect." Spurgeon actually was very adamant about that point. He believed that all infants that die would not perish. This actually is more in line with Calvinism than other explanations I had heard. Some would teach that if the child's parents were part of the elect, then they could be confident that there children were too. But it seems that this flies directly in the face against their Calvinist Theology of Unconditional Election. This is putting the Election as being Conditioned on the faith of the parents!
Anyway... What do we know for sure? Man without God is without hope. He is not willing that any should perish. Salvation is of the Lord. I could go on and on, but eventually the verses that people like to contend about will be too much and fights will break out, etc...
Just a thought...
3 comments:
This is a question and NOT an argument!
"The basic error of Calvinism is confounding election and predestination with salvation."
So how would we define election or predestination. They seem to directly correlate in scripture with salvation (Eph 1 for example).
Just curious, also what is the book your reading?
Mike, I'm reading, "The Other Side of Calvinism" by Lawrence Vance.
a non-Calvinist view of Ephesians 1:4-5 specifically would be: the choosing and predestinating is to be: holy & without blame, and to be adopted. Those things are a result of being saved.
Looking at verse 4, a Calvinist would say, God chose you to be in Him. A non-Calvinist would say, Because you're in Him, He has chosen you to be holy & without blame.
Verse 5: A Calvinist would say God before the foundation of the world, by an eternal, Sovereign decree, ordained that you should be saved. A non-Calvinist would say of verse 5, that God fore-ordained that whoever is in Christ would be adopted to God by Him.
Again, in verse 11: A Calvinist says, we were predestinated to be saved and to obtain an inheritance. A non-Calvinist would say, because of whom we are in ("In Whom"), it was predestinated that we should obtain an inheritance. We were predestinated to obtain an inheritance, it's not we were predestinated to have God's Spirit make us born again in order for us to believe. Verse 13 in that chapter tells us that our eternal security comes after we believe.
I didn't understand it at the time, but when Pastor Metzger taught through the book of Ephesians, he kept making the point of it all being "in Christ." You find that phrase or reference in vss: 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 20.
The summary of it: Because we are "in Christ" it has been predestinated, foreordained, elected, chosen that we would receive certain blessings. We got "in Christ" when we believed.
That's my understanding of it...
just thought that i would say that dave (david's) responses to your June 1st posting were well formed as well as your responses andy. wish i could have gotten in on that conversation.
and your bike riding is a little out of control;)
Post a Comment