A Point Established

[Guest]

Dear Steve,

I think we have a least established a point. That is, from the non-Calvinist perspective, man is the ultimate arbiter of his own salvation. God can only do so much because that is His will. So man is the final determiner as to whether or not he goes to heaven or hell? God is not. Is that correct?

Thanks, Jude

[Guest]

It's like giving your local church a donation in the form of a check for $100. It is just a piece of paper, but it is a promise of payment. If the church cashes it, they have $100 in real money (currency). If they doubt you have sufficient funds they may not cash it and therefore recieve nothing. One decision was based on faith, the other was a lack of it.

Now if the church cashes the check, it didn't earn the money. The money was a gift with no strings attached except for faith in the promise (in the form of a check) that it would actually be worth it's stated value ($100).

But if cashing the check would be considered payment for the "work" of cashing it, then your original intent of giving a donation would be erased. Because the church earned the money by cashing it.

So in God's eyes you didn't donate anything, but mearly paid for sevices rendered.


This is how I see salvation. The only condition is faith. (Heb 3:12-4:3)
So man making a choice of believing does not earn his salvation (Rom 4:5 & v18-21).

[_Steve]

Jude and Sean,
Thanks for posting the above.

I think Calvinists are often astonished that non-Calvinists can actually say (without cringing) that the ultimate choice of individual salvation lies with the individual. This astonishment is the result of the Calvinist's particular view of divine sovereignty that equates the meaning of the word "sovereignty" with the concept of "meticulous providence." In other words, if God is "sovereign" this means, by (Augustinian) definition, that nothing occurs except for what God has specifically and immutably decreed should happen. This is so fundamental to the Calvinist's theology that it is seldom questioned whether the word "sovereign" legitimately bears this meaning, or whether the Bible ever mentions or hints at the existence of such "decrees."

The non-Calvinist sees no reason to import these concepts into a Bible that does not contain them. If God did not see fit to say anything about such things, then they either must not be true, or else, if true, can hardly be fundamental to our knowledge of God.

Since the Calvinist accepts these concepts as a starting point, it seems to him blasphemous to suggest that anything at all could occur contrary to what God ordains to occur—especially when it comes to an individual being saved or lost. The non-Calvinist does not start his reasoning from the assumption of these extra-biblical concepts, but starts further back, asking such questions as, "Are we really obliged to import into the definition of 'sovereign' such concepts as it does not, in realms outside theological discourse, possess?" and "Does the Bible anywhere endorse a doctrine of meticulous providence?" and "Is there any reason that we cannot take God's self-revelation at face value, on the many occasions when He declares His will to be contrary to what actually occurs, when He gives commands contrary to what actually results, and when He expresses both anger and frustration at certain outcomes?" (e.g., Gen.4:6-7/Isa.5:4/66:4/Matt.23:37/Luke 7:30)

Coming to the Bible without Calvinist presuppositions (as most Christians appear to have done prior to Augustine) frees up our minds to take all of the scriptural data seriously, and not to simply amass a few proof texts for a doctrinal preference and then to shoe-horn the bulk of biblical revelation, against nature, into a prescribed paradigm. It allows us to let God speak for Himself, instead of limiting what He is permitted to say about Himself. It lets us believe God when He expresses grief over the lost condition of sinners who die unsaved (Ezek.33:11), and to believe that our prayers and actions may actually accomplish something (Matt.7:7), and to believe that men really are responsible for their own decisions and really deserve the punishments they receive for their sins. It allows us to really believe that God loves all sinners, as He says He does (Luke 6:35-36), and that He really is a just God, according to the very standards of justice that He has revealed as the guide for our own actions (comp. Rom.2:11 & James 2:1, 4).

In a previous post (http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=66), I gave my biblical reasons for believing that man makes the final decision about his own salvation. This is, essentially, the primitive Christian position. After Augustine, other ideas came to be regarded as "orthodox" and later "reformed"—resulting in the circumstance, which we now observe, of some Christians (Calvinists) finding it hard to comprehend that anyone could take such a view of human responsibility.

Sean's example of cashing a check is, I think, a very good one. It shows how a certain action (endorsing and cashing a check) may be a condition upon which an outcome depends, without in any sense "earning" or "meriting" that outcome (i.e., receiving the cash for the check).

I appreciate both of your contributions to this discussion.

[Guest]

The analogy of the check holds together in itself, but it does not prove the reality of the cross and gospel. The analogy simply illustrates the point of view of some who interpret the ministry of the biblical gospel of grace to be administered that way. But it is a good analogy for understanding someone’s point of view concerning how we apprehend eternal life. Jude

[Guest]

I see eternal life as a Gift of God through Christ. The condition is belief, Grace thru faith. (Romans 4, Eph 2:8-9)
It is up to us to ultimately respond to the Gospel. (Hebrews 4:1-3)