Wiploc

Cool, thanks.
crc

Bill Snedden

Uh, did you perhaps mean that last sentence to read, "...not preclude..."?

If so, I think that either you've misread Calvin OR I'm failing to understand exactly what you're saying. I would agree that election does not preclude one's "coming to faith", although it surely precludes one's NOT coming to faith, but it certainly must preclude one's "gaining salvation."

IF God's grace is bestowed by Him alone (and it is, according to Calvin) and IF He has determined the elect from before time (and He has, according to Calvin) then it is IMPOSSIBLE for one of the non-elect to become elect as there was never any time when one of the elect were not elect.

I believe that what Calvin is saying in those passages is that knowledge or the sure knowledge of election will not come to the elect automatically or immediately. I think that is one of the purposes (as regards us) of good works to Calvin: they are an internal and external sign of one's election. This is the "comfort" of Calvinism.

(Of course, the true purpose of good works, according to Calvin, is to glorify God, but that's something on which I'm sure we both agree)

One cannot "gain" something one was never without. As the elect have been so before the beginning of time (not metaphorically speaking; to Calvin it was a reality). I believe that Calvin is again speaking of the knowledge of one's election. As he says in that quote, "...the elect are gathered into Christ's flock..." Clearly, they were elect before they were "gathered" otherwise how could it be the elect who are gathered? I believe the "gathering of which he speaks is not their election (for that would make his sentence nonsensical), but their gathering into the body of Christ (the church) and their recognition or sure knowledge of their own election. The "gathering" is the point at which they become "regenerate" and convicted of their own sinful natures, not the point at which they become elect.

Hmmm...did you intend this material to contradict what I had posted about the reprobate and their ineluctable nature? From your last sentence, it seems we rather agree.

Our "disagreement" is most likely either due to a misunderstanding between us, or (possibly more likely) an issue on the order of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". However, is it possible that perhaps you're reading Calvin through Arminian-colored glasses?

mnkbdky

Yes, I did mean "not preclude." Sorry. I hate typos--especially ones that contradict my point.

You state that election does not preclude one's "coming to faith", yet it does rule out one's "gaining salvation." This is a contradiction. Salvation is accomplished through faith. If a person has no faith, they have no salvation. If election does not rule out one's coming to faith, it cannot rule out "gaining salvation."

I suggest you think of it on two levels. Think of God's decree as the top level. This is a blue print of how history will play out. Call this the view "from above." Now imaging the actual world as unfolding below the blue print as time progresses. While God's blue print says that person S will be saved and is part of the elect, his election is not actualized until time T. Call this the view "from below."

In Calvinist theology there is a critical distinction between decree and application. The decree is the blue print or view "from above", the application is the working out of that decree or the view "from below." The blue print is the synchronic election, the application is the diachronic election.

From above--the blue print--the person is alway elected. However, from below--our perspective--we would have viewed the person who once had no faith as one of the unelect. It was not until they had faith, that they proved to be of the elect. So, according to the "from below" perspective one does gain salvation and election status. That is, they are now saved or have faith, whereas before they were not and did not. According to the "from above" perspective the person was always elected, "from below" they gained it. Calvin's theology is meant to give us a glimpse at the "from above."

Perhaps, this will illustrate the point. Suppose that God has decreed that tomorrow I will be given a brand new pink Saturn wagon. From above God has decreed that it will happen, it will come about no other way. However, just because it is decreed does not mean that I have that Saturn now. If I did I could sell it and get something I wanted. So, from below, tomorrow I will gain something that I previously did not have, namely, the pink Saturn wagon.

The same can be said about election, faith and salvation. It is God's decree that person S be saved and have faith, they are part of the elect. However, that all does not work out until time T. The person gains something they previously did not have, namely, election, salvation and faith.

Perhaps another illustration will be helpful. Imagine you have been presented with the opportunity to assemble the basketball team of your choice. You write down on a piece of paper all the players you would like to have on your team. You have elected them. After the roster is made up you have all the NBA players line up. You proceed to call the names off the list and have the person's name who was called out step forward.

In this illustration there are two parts to the election. The decree or list of names and the application or the calling of the names. The players were part of the elect from the time their names were put on the list. But they were not actually elected until you called their names. From your perspective they were always elected, however, from the players view they were once part of the unelect. That is, there was a time when they were not on your team. Though, they may look back on the election list with comfort knowing that you had them on your list to be elected to the team.

I do believe it is due to a misunderstanding. I am offering two common ways that Calvinists articulate the doctrine of election. The view "from above" and the view "from below." The former is a God's eye perspective, the latter a human perspective. I hope this clears up any confusion.

fundamental spawn

It's predestination of man's nature ..... not so much predestination of concurrent events.

Man's nature is fixed at birth so he is "predestined" to desire evil unless freed by Christ (I do not believe this, but being a former Presbyterian Elder I know the doctrine).

Here is an illustration:

A lion can physiologically digest hay just as a horse can, or close. The lion can stay alive on hay for a long time. But his will is turned against it. Zoos have found that lions will rebuff non-meat diets until starvation symptoms appear. It is not that the lion cannot eat hay, it is that he will not due to his predestined (born) nature. His nature must be changed, i.e. "born again."

Predesination says that man is destined for perdition not because of manipulations by God but due to man's nature which is turned against God. Then this is why God must "elect" - supply the faith - of some to turn to Christ and transform the human nature.

It doesn't mean every leaf that falls, etc. is following a script.

Luiseach

Hi: Thanks for the succinct and unambiguous description of morality a la Calvin :-)

Now, this is what I take issue with when it comes to Calvinism. What kind of zoo would be so cruel, so sadistic and manipulative, as to put a lion - a carnivore - on a non-meat diet, thereby forcing it to go against its nature and its basic biological needs, and eat vegetable matter out of desperation?

Is this what the God of Calvin does with humanity?

So God creates humanity in one way (i.e. not suitable for salvation), thereby ensuring that by default people will go to Hell. He then, as you point out, 'elects' or 'suppl[ies] the faith' to 'some' of the people, so that they - and only they - will 'turn to Christ,' and become suitable for salvation.

Now I wonder this: Why does God decide to select some people for salvation, and not others?

Calvin's God is being a bit unfair, to say the least...

[Edited to add] I wonder, sometimes, if Calvinism encourages agnosticism/atheism in some way, once it is figured out by the doubting believer that the Calvinistic belief system is, at its heart, rather dodgy.

fundamental spawn

Here is the answer the Reformed faith offers, from the words of Paul: "Can clay answer the potter?" I.e., we creatures are made by God and thus our questioning of these things is irrelevent .... God makes us as he makes us and his creative act gives him right. I.e., "Justice flows from the throne of God" ...... what they say is, God doesn't do what is just; rather, what God does is just by definition.

As a reformed Reformed elder - I agree with you. The notion that as part of a federally imposed punishment of the First Adam, mankind is put into a situation where the only salvation possible is one unreachable and even unknowable by his inborn nature, well......

Wiploc

But he didn't create us unworthy. According to the traditional Christian picture of history, he created us worthy, and then contrived to have us fall into unworthiness. Then he randomly selects some of us for reworthification.

crc

Luiseach

Hi again:

Thanks for your response!

Okay...that confirms my suspicions about Calvin's God...that he pulls the 'Job' card out when queried by his creatures, especially when faced with the 'Why?' question.

So, God's motives remain inscrutable within the calvinistic paradigm...he is beyond reasoning with, beyond reproach.

Now, as for the effects of this set-up, within the human realm, and in terms of human morality.

If the Calvinistic God cannot/must not be questioned/criticised, and we as his creatures can never know who is Elect and who is Damned, then how are we expected to proceed? In other words, how does a Calvinist approach the issue of morality?

I take it that to hedge one's bets, it would do well to act like the Elect, just in case God has chosen you.

Perhaps this is the desired effect of the Predestination Doctrine? Ideally, the hope for Salvation would compel people to behave themselves.

However, and this is an issue that troubles Muriel Spark in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (the book I was giving a tutorial in), another possible effect of a moral system based on Predestination is that someone could hypothetically decide she/he is one of the Elect, and that nothing she/he does will damage this status. I think that's what the dualistic (Jekyll and Hyde) character of Jean Brodie is meant to demonstrate: she is one of the implications of God choosing the Elect. Because God's decisions are irrevocable, then he cannot go against his own will by damning one of his Elect if they decide to be wicked after being chosen.

Jean Brodie has decided that she is one of the Elect, and that therefore she is by definition immune from God's disfavour. She then proceeds to sin in various ways. This is the flaw in the doctrine of Calvinistic Predestination that Spark takes issue with.

I can't say that I blame her!

lol @ 'reformed Reformed elder' :-D

Luiseach

Good point.

I suppose, however, that the traditional Christian view would point out that the Fall was the fault of humanity in the first place.

So, basically, God is visiting the sins of the father on the child.

Rather vindictive and childish behaviour for such a Supreme Being, eh?

Wiploc

That explanation is called "first order theodicy." It falls prey to the "first order problem of evil," which points out that since god knows the future, he could have put the tree elsewhere, or sent the snake on a different day, or started us off with, say, Solomon and Ruth rather than Adam and Eve. We would still be living in the garden if that was what god wanted.

The Christians respond with "second order theodicy," explaining that okay, yes, god planned the Fall, but it was for "higher" purpose of gaining glory by the crusifiction.

I asked whether our suffering couldn't be an accidental or natural result of the Fall. I'm told that isn't the orthodox teaching. The descendants if Eve suffer because god decided that would be Eve's punishment, not because a sinful nature is naturally heritable.
crc