OT Saul's Salvation and Fall From Grace?

[remade]

In my personal studies, I am reading lately through probably my favorite OT book(s): I and II Samuel.

In particular verses dealing with Saul's acceptance and/or denial of God, it seems to be a breeding ground for Calvinism / Arminianism debates. I myself lean towards Arminian, though I am currently unwilling to plant myself on a continuum saying, "This is what I believe."

In my personal studying today, I came to I Samuel 10:9; where it seems this is describing believing position of Saul. It says that "God gave him a new heart." Of course, even the average literate Bible reader knows that Saul would come to reject God's kingship, and thus giving rise to David.

Compare this passage though with I Samuel 15:10, where Saul rejects God, and I Samuel 16:14, Saul's rejection made way for a "evil spirit from the Lord" to enter into Saul (see also 18:10).

Now, some of my Study Bibles done by Calvinist editors suggest that God's change of Saul's heart (in I Samuel 10:9), is firstly, a change that GOD did which should dispel any rumors that Saul made the conscientious choice to accept God... and that change was obviously just for God's sovereign purposes that did not have to do with salvation.

What are anyone's thoughts? Do these passages have to do with the Arminian and Calvinist discussion at all? Does it point to one or the other being more correct?

[dizerner]

I don't think it supports one or the other more, but under Calvinism it is very strong support for what Calvin called effervescent grace, that God's good pleasure is to make people think they are Christians very persuasively and give them all the outward signs, only to pull the rug out from them later. This idea seemed to plague several Calvinists at the end of their lives, that they might after all be vessels of wrath.

[Michelle]

I don't think it supports one or the other more, but under Calvinism it is very strong support for what Calvin called effervescent grace, that God's good pleasure is to make people think they are Christians very persuasively and give them all the outward signs, only to pull the rug out from them later. This idea seemed to plague several Calvinists at the end of their lives, that they might after all be vessels of wrath.

Hi dizerner, I apologize for the interruption of your discussion with remade, but I've been trying to look into "effervescent grace," and I can't find anything by googling. Do you have any reference? I have Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion but have not read any of it yet. Is the reference there?

[Paidion]

Michelle, I did a google search for "Calvin effervescent grace" and under the link to one site were the following words:

According to Calvin, doubting the certainty of one's salvation is sinful. ... brings humanity into the effervescent and indestructible life of God's eternal Logos. ... or actualist conception of grace as if God in Christ himself is grace.

I didn't actually go to the site since Norton doesn't OK it. But if you want to risk it, this is the link:

http://growrag.wordpress.com

[remade]

Hey folks -

As we continue to read in I Samuel 10, particularly verses 10-13

10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. 11 And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, “What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” 12 And a man of the place answered, “And who is their father?” Therefore it became a proverb, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” 13 When he had finished prophesying, he came to the high place. ESV

I guess I am drawn to wonder why the writer of these books took such a strong emphasis on describing the heart change of Saul, if not to do two things: (1) Completely show that Saul WAS a changed man (ie. he was a believer, a man of faith) and (2) reveal how his fall is all the more tragic.

Would anybody agree to that?

[dizerner]

I don't think it supports one or the other more, but under Calvinism it is very strong support for what Calvin called effervescent grace, that God's good pleasure is to make people think they are Christians very persuasively and give them all the outward signs, only to pull the rug out from them later. This idea seemed to plague several Calvinists at the end of their lives, that they might after all be vessels of wrath.

Hi dizerner, I apologize for the interruption of your discussion with remade, but I've been trying to look into "effervescent grace," and I can't find anything by googling. Do you have any reference? I have Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion but have not read any of it yet. Is the reference there?

Well, lol, this is quite embarrassing but it's probably because I used the wrong word (looking at someone else who had put this similar sounding word in).

You will get much better results with:
Calvin Evanescent Grace

here's a good post on another forum I frequent http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.p ... cent-Grace

[dizerner]

Hey folks -

As we continue to read in I Samuel 10, particularly verses 10-13

10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. 11 And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, “What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” 12 And a man of the place answered, “And who is their father?” Therefore it became a proverb, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” 13 When he had finished prophesying, he came to the high place. ESV

I guess I am drawn to wonder why the writer of these books took such a strong emphasis on describing the heart change of Saul, if not to do two things: (1) Completely show that Saul WAS a changed man (ie. he was a believer, a man of faith) and (2) reveal how his fall is all the more tragic.

Would anybody agree to that?

Yes. What we can't assume is that giving someone a new heart removes their ability to make it bad again. It's like God giving you a second chance—doesn't assure you will use it.

[Michelle]

I don't think it supports one or the other more, but under Calvinism it is very strong support for what Calvin called effervescent grace, that God's good pleasure is to make people think they are Christians very persuasively and give them all the outward signs, only to pull the rug out from them later. This idea seemed to plague several Calvinists at the end of their lives, that they might after all be vessels of wrath.

Hi dizerner, I apologize for the interruption of your discussion with remade, but I've been trying to look into "effervescent grace," and I can't find anything by googling. Do you have any reference? I have Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion but have not read any of it yet. Is the reference there?

Well, lol, this is quite embarrassing but it's probably because I used the wrong word (looking at someone else who had put this similar sounding word in).

You will get much better results with:
Calvin Evanescent Grace

here's a good post on another forum I frequent http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.p ... cent-Grace

Thanks, dizerner, now I can look into this. Sorry about highlighting a mistake.

[dizerner]

Thanks, dizerner, now I can look into this. Sorry about highlighting a mistake.

NO problem those things tend to keep us humble

[remade]

Yes. What we can't assume is that giving someone a new heart removes their ability to make it bad again. It's like God giving you a second chance—doesn't assure you will use it.

As I studied today in my personal readings, the fall from grace in Saul's life... perhaps setting up in I Samuel 13:8-14 in which Saul assumes the responsibilities of a priest... (Jesus assuredly can be and is prophet, priest and King)... and culminated in the tearing of Samuel's robe found in I Samuel 15.. I guess a sadness hit me all the more.

If I am honest, a Calvinistic view has appealed to me for many reasons, but all the reasons are because I feel less responsible for my response to God (Which I would admit, aren't the best reasons).

(1) If I am assuredly elect, then there is NOTHING I can do to lose my salvation which brings profound relief.

(2) If I am assuredly elect, then I no longer need to perform. This presupposes that any orthodox soteriological view suggests that performance is due on part of the Christian. What I mean by "perform," and the assurance and relief that comes from a Calvinist view, is that whether I'm a "good" or "bad" Christian, whether I am devout, always-church attending, good at reading my Bible, and good at confessing and repenting of sin or not, the Calvinist view brings assurance that says, "Even if you do 'fail', you're saved."

(3) If I am assuredly elect, then even the biggest of sins, and the longest of rebellions will always, utterly, and assuredly be met with an eventual repentance and return to grace; that brings profound relief.

Yet, these three truths may not be truths. And furthermore, the antitheses for the reprobate are chilling, disturbing, and devoid of any blessed assurance that apparently the Calvinist says that exists for the elect and the reprobate at the same time.

Just thinking out loud here. If it starts more conversation, I'll tune in.