Atticus_Finch

I am currently in a debate regarding Calvin's teaching that faith is a gift from God which is only given to the Elect.

I know that there are some very knowledgeable and thoughful bible scholars on this site (that includes those who are believers and those who aren't). I would like to know which side you believe has the better argument regarding man's free will choice to believe in God vs. God's sovereign election of those who will believe.

Regards,

Finch

Brian_iiiii

A very interesting question. Let me share something from Luther's Small Catechism, an explaination of the last part of
the Apostle's Creed.

==============================================
The Third Article: Sanctification

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith......
==============================================

So human choice is not sufficient, it has to be helped along by the Holy Spirit.

I had to memorize this in 8th grade at a time I was losing my faith, but still certain I would go to hell for it. It seemed unfair that God wasn't sending me enough of the Holy Spirit to make me a believer.

Wiploc

Neither side has a clear advantage because they both base their arguments on the same ambiguous and self-contradictory book.
crc

Amos

The problem here is that if we have to believe in the HS he is not 'within us' and if the HS is not within us (but just 'with us' so we can believe in him) we are not Christians. If the HS is within us and we are Christians we should not go to church because there are no temples in the New Jerusalem (Rev.21:22).

Brian_iiiii

===========================================
The problem here is that if we have to believe in the HS he is not 'within us' ===========================================

I don't see how that follows. Why can't the HS be both "with us" and "within us"?

The HS helps create the faith by which Christians believe in the HS. Where's the problem with that?


===========================================
If the HS is within us and we are Christians we should not go to church because there are no temples in the New Jerusalem (Rev.21:22).
===========================================

Revelations 21 refers to the "end times", not our current time.

I'm trying to parse the logic in your sentence, and failing. Can you explain a little bit more what you mean here? If the HS is within us and we are Christians, aren't these pretty good reasons TO go to church?

Amos

There is a passage that tells us that "the HS is with us and will be within us" (yes in the NT but I can't find it right now). The distinction between "with us" and "within us" is made to differentiate between the ordinary believer and the spirit filled born again believer.

Of course he does and there is no problem with that.The end times are here for the enriched born again believer who was called by name to 'enter the race,' so to speak, and from that moment on he must work out his own salvation [in fear and trembling]. To "work out" you own salvation is very much true in both protestant and Catholic theology. It means that salvation is real but it also indicates that salvation is just the beginning of the end and therefore the end times are here at least for those who have been called by name.

In Catholic theology this is the time that we enter Purgatory as son of man and leave religion behind because "son of man has no place to lie his head." We are set free from the law (no more religious slavery) and should not seek any justification in the law and you can find this in Gal.5:1-4 (4)"any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor." This would be the reason why charismatic movements are not encouraged by the Catholic church and at best they are tolerated for a while until they break up on their own.

Brian_iiiii

============================================
The problem here is that if we have to believe in the HS he is not 'within us' and if the HS is not within us (but just 'with us' so we can believe in him) we are not Christians. If the HS is within us and we are Christians we should not go to church because there are no temples in the New Jerusalem (Rev.21:22
==============================================

1. Can you explain to me again what exactly is the problem you are referring to here?

2. Can you explain to me again exactly why Christians should not go to church?

Most Christians would not see a problem with belief in the Holy Spirit, and most Christians would not interpret Revelations as saying we should not go to church.

Amos

The problem? Your creed is wrong! It is impossible to believe in the "Christian church" because churches are not for Christians but they are for believers. Understand here that believers have doubt because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt and so it is wrong to be called a Christian when you are a believer with doubt. Putting this on a slippery slope doubters would also be called Christians because just as you can't have faith without doubt is it impossible to have doubt without faith.

Thomas the doubter was the twin of Peter the faither and before Jesus could ascend into heaven as Christ all doubt needed to be removed and that is why Thomas had to be shown so he would be removed as a hindrance towards ascention. The removal of doubt also defrocked Peter who once again put on his cloak of faith on the next fishing trip (Jn.21:7).

Because churches are for sinners and Christians have been set free from the law and are free from sin (1Jn.3:9).

"Most Christians" can also be wrong.

Brian_iiiii

==========================================
....because churches are not for Christians but they are for believers.
==========================================

Define your terms please. What's the difference between a "Christian" and a "believer"? My understanding is that if you are a Christian, then you are a believer. My understanding is Churches ARE for Christians since that's who I see participating in them.

==========================================
Understand here that believers have doubt.....
==========================================

Most do, some do not.

==========================================
...because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt...
==========================================

Really? How so? I can conceive of fanaticism, which by definition is the absence of doubt.

==========================================
.... and so it is wrong to be called a Christian when you are a believer with doubt.
===========================================

Huh? Okay, let's say I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal savior, but I admit I have some doubt. Are you saying I cannot call myself a Christian? What would you call me then? And what would you call most people who fill the churches in my city who certainly call themselves Christians, and think they are Christians?

=============================================
Putting this on a slippery slope doubters would also be called Christians .....
=============================================

Slippery slope? You've just directly contradicted your last statement. Which is it? If I'm a believer with doubt can I be called a Christian or not?

=============================================
.......because just as you can't have faith without doubt is it impossible to have doubt without faith.
=============================================
So any concept I have doubt about implies I have some faith in that concept? I don't agree. I can't prove it, but I doubt there are pink unicorns living in the Rocky Mountains. Does this imply then that part of me has faith that there are in fact pink unicorns in the Rocky Mountains? I don't think so.


==============================================
Thomas the doubter was the twin of Peter the faither.....
==============================================

I had not heard this before. Can you quote a credible bible expert who asserts Thomas and Peter were twins?

==============================================
and before Jesus could ascend into heaven as Christ all doubt needed to be removed .....
==============================================

Where does THAT concept follow from scripture? Can you quote some supporting evidence?

============================================
"Most Christians" can also be wrong.
============================================

Granted. You just need to construct a coherent and logical argument to show that, instead of just playing games with semantics.

Amos

Yes I know what your understanding is and I presented this argument just to give you a different concept of what it can mean to be a Christian. An argument can be made that a Christian has been a follower of Jesus and now has the mind of God. He is a testator of his own death and has received the promised eternal inheritance of the NT (Hebrews 9:16). A Christian once was a believer who went through purgatory to find understanding in all things and now is a resident of the "new heaven and new earth" that emerged through our understanding of the old heaven and earth that we saw as believer (Rev. 21:1). "The sea was gone" means that a Christian does not have a soul because he has become one with this soul (which equals the mind of God).

Following up on this, a believer has soul and therefore must have doubt and it is not good enought to call yourself a Christian if you believe some things but doubt others. Conversely, doubters are also believers but they do not call themselves Christians because they doubt and believe different things.

All have doubt unless they are omniscient and then faith becomes a hindrance towards understanding (here faith is sin and therefore Peter was defrocked).

A pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other.

Well you can but that would be counting yourself among the righteous while Jesus was counted among the wicked and had to die to become fully Christ (Jesus was never called Christ until after the resurrection). So to call yourself a Christian while torn by the saved sinner complex is like feeding a wolf with an unending appetite for righteousness.

At best would you be an enriched believer now mandated to work out your own salvation and you must do this here and now lest you die with the unresolved saved sinner paradox -- in which case you die nonetheless.[quote][b]

=============================================
Putting this on a slippery slope doubters would also be called Christians .....
=============================================

Slippery slope? You've just directly contradicted your last statement. Which is it? If I'm a believer with doubt can I be called a Christian or not?
=============================================
.......because just as you can't have faith without doubt is it impossible to have doubt without faith.
=============================================
So any concept I have doubt about implies I have some faith in that concept? I don't agree. I can't prove it, but I doubt there are pink unicorns living in the Rocky Mountains. Does this imply then that part of me has faith that there are in fact pink unicorns in the Rocky Mountains? I don't think so.[quote][b]

You probably have just as much faith as you have doubt in these pink unicorns so they don't make much of an opposites to worry about.

Sorry I can't because I am not a theologian.

The exclamation of Thomas "my Lord and my God" indicates the undivided unity between Lord God and God in the person Jesus. In other words with the removal of doubt Jesus had become fully God (Jn.20:28). Notice that in the next chapter the resurrected Jesus appeared in Galilea to broaden the horizon of Jesus as God.I don't mind that most Christians are wrong but they should.