Reformed Theology

[Guest]

So how is it that God can choose the church, without choosing and having in mind the individuals that make up the church?

Same way an airline can schedule a plane load of people to fly to Paris six months from now without choosing the passengers. Oops, that sounds open-theist.

[Guest]

Soaring Eagle wrote: So how is it that God can choose the church, without choosing and having in mind the individuals that make up the church?

I believe God knows who the elect (those who persevere) are. He indeed "has them in mind". Unlike United Airlines, God knows this before "the passengers buy their tickets". But like United Airlines, it is the flight that He predestined not who occupies each seat. It is up to the passengers to "purchase their ticket". (Homer, I hope you don't mind my borrowing your analogy. It works well with the one caveat being that buying a ticket is not a meritorious work)

God predestined the process, not the results (although He knows the results, nonetheless).

[Guest]

Dane,

I am understanding what you have said to mean that God predestined the Church, so Eph2 is talking about the Church, not individual believers, am I correct? If this is so, I'm not really understanding though why a distinction is made (if its made) when the Church is made up of individual believers, from all generations can be the "us". Maybe I am just not getting it. Can you explain? When we vote later this year we as Americans will be choosing for ourselves the next president. Likewise God "4 chose us in him before the creation of the world".

As for Mystery, its something we hear when the Trinity is explained. The scriptures teach the doctrine of the Trinity, one God, yet three distinct Persons of the Godhead, all eternal, not created or made. As Christians we believe this, its fundamental to our faith. So is the doctrine of the Hypo-static Union. This involves the two natures of Christ. Again something we as Christians believe. However do we fully understand it? No. We might be able to apprehend this from the scriptures, but they are not something we fully understand. There is mystery in this teaching. I accept this. But also likewise there is mystery to salvation. Concerning Calvinism, which didn't stem from Calvin at all, there is mystery within the idea God elects and predestines some. We don't know who is God's elect or who out of a crowd will turn from sin and accept the gospel. I'm new to this reformed theology so I am limited right now in how far I can speak about this, for it or against. My pastor also sees mystery in this area because he believes the Bible does teach election. However at the same point he accepts those passages that seem universal in nature (concerning salvation) so salvation is offered to all of humanity or God wants to save all. He says he doesn't understand it even though it may seem to be a contradictory idea. Kind of like a paradox, mystery. Something taught in scripture but we cannot fully understand it.


Robin

[Guest]

Mort,

I'll check that out.

Robin

[Guest]

Jess and Sean,

Thanks for the informed posts. I will need to look them over.

Let me ask you this,

It seems that what is predestined is the idea of the Church (from the flight analogy), not the Church itself. I see the universal Church is the totality of individual members and cannot be separated. This is why I said 'the idea of the Church'. If this is so, where in scripture does it make this distinction?
This sounds foreign to me.

Do you believe someone can lose their salvation?

Is faith spiritual or natural?

When a man puts faith in Christ does he;
- do so with his own intellect, ability, so faith stems or originates in him
- do so because God brought him into a neutral state where he has the ability or real free will to believe or not
- do so because God calls him, regenerates him, irresistable grace is applied causing him to believe
- or because of something else??

I'll read your replies after this then think and search the scriptures to what you're saying then respond. Thanx for the good discussions and hope they will continue.

Robin

[Guest]

Hey Robin,

I'll do what I can to offer some answers. But keep in mind that I am not a spokesperson for any movement or idea. I can only share with you what I think, and how I've come to understand some of these ideas. That, and 50¢, won't get you a stale cup of coffee in a cheap diner...

I am understanding what you have said to mean that God predestined the Church, so Eph2 is talking about the Church, not individual believers, am I correct?

Yes, that is what I meant.

If this is so, I'm not really understanding though why a distinction is made (if its made) when the Church is made up of individual believers, from all generations can be the "us". Maybe I am just not getting it. Can you explain?

I don't think it is a case of making a distinction of individual believers or of the Church as a whole. Let me explain this way ...

When I was Calvinistic, I would read Eph 1:4-5 this way: "God chose me before the foundation of the world that I should be holy and blameless ... He predestined me to adoption as a son ..."

As a non-Calvinist, I see the same passage this way: God chose the Church before the foundation of the world that it should be holy and blameless ... He predestined the Church to adoption as a son ..."

Once again, think of Israel, whom God chose. It is true that God did not chose the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Assyrians - or any other nation; He chose the Israelites to work through. Yet, a Philistine, an Egyptian, or an Assyrians could become a convert to Judaism (i.e. Rahab). By converting to Judaism one became part of the chosen, and could share in its destiny. In a very similar way God has chosen and predestined the Church, which accepts converts who are circumcised of the heart.

As for Mystery ... Something taught in scripture but we cannot fully understand it.

I think I understand what you mean now. You originally asked: But if someone never accepts mystery in the Bible couldn't it lead to error? Im not saying those who don't accept reformed theology are in error, but I am saying that to reject mystery could lead to error.

I agree that there are many things in the Bible that are mysterious to me. I can accept the fact that I do not understand many (if not most) things. But to say that "reject[ing] mystery" leads to error is not something I can be comfortable agreeing with. In my opinion what leads to error is rejecting what is clear, not what is mysterious.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Arminians/Open Theists disagree with Calvinist's on the nature of His activity and drawing in life (specifically heart and mind) of the wicked. As far as I know though, all agree that God must first "come to us" and that without this intervention, no one would turn to Him.

[Guest]

Dane,

Sorry, I didn't mean rejecting mystery leads to error. What I meant by saying that is if I believed there is some mystery in the Bible. However thought to myself I have this salvation thing figured out and lets say believed in calvinism, but took it to the extreme and followed only logical thinking or whatever and ended up in hyper-calvinism. The same can be said of others with different ideas. This is all I meant.

Robin

[Guest]

Dane,

I forgot to ask you this. Now that I understand the Church and individual distinction. Do you also separate Israel from all the individuals who are a part of Israel?

I never understood Eph2 as "us" meaning just me, but "us" plural, all believers, the Church, but which included me. This is a new idea that I've never heard of. Separating the Church, as if its an idea or something (I don't know what you'd call it) from the individuals who make up the Church.

Robin

[Guest]

Do you also separate Israel from all the individuals who are a part of Israel?

I'm not sure how to answer that. Israel, of course, was made up of people, and so when I think of the nation I can't help but think of a people. Kind of like when I think of any nation - they are a nation of people. So, no, I don't separate the nation from its individuals.

Let me approach it another way ...

When I was Calvinist in my thinking I would argue that when God chose Israel as His people, He was not choosing other nations. That was true. But, then I made a bad leap of logic by saying that God's choice of Israel was a type of God's choice of believers - He elects some to salvation, and others to damnation. The problem that I now have with that logic is that when God chose Israel, He was not damning other nations. Quite the contrary, God was choosing one group to be a vessel of salvation to all the others. I believe that it was God's desire that all people would have come to Him through His chosen people.

I think that that is still the case .... as Peter wrote: "you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..." (1 Peter 2:9). We are still the instruments that God has chosen to redeem the world.

This is a new idea that I've never heard of. Separating the Church, as if its an idea or something (I don't know what you'd call it) from the individuals who make up the Church.

It's not that so much that I'm separating the Church from the people, as I am separating the predestination of the Church from the individualized predestination of the people.

Clear as mud?

peace,

dane