Jonvil, we posted at the same time, and I must also agree with you that the grace we are talking about here is not cheap—it comes at the very high cost of Jesus’ blood.

Greg

Greg, may I ask about your opinion regarding Bonhoeffers argument in this first chapter I mention in my previous post? Is he right or is he wrong and why?

västergötland, I will look at Bonhoeffer’s chapter later today and get back to you. I’d also be interested in hearing your response to what I wrote earlier today about indicatives and imperatives.

Greg

9For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
10so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously
12giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
13For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

It is the Father who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints, but it is we who walk in a manner worthy of the Lord according to what knowledge of His will and what spiritual wisdom we have.
What about 2:11-13 I wonder? Us having died together with Christ in baptism and having been made alive by God?
I think the difference between us is if humans can turn Gods unilateral action down or not.

västergötland, can you give me a biblical example of a person who was born again of the Spirit, but was later “un-born” because of a choice made he made?

Once the Spirit begins a work of redemption, is it the sinner’s responsibility to complete it?

Greg

Of course I can not because you will say that any person who later prove to be “un-born” was never born at all in the first place. Against this presupposition I can do nothing.

“The idea of a situation in which faith is possible is only a way of stating the facts of a case in which the following two propositions hold good and are equally true: only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.
It is quite unbiblical to hold the first proposition without the second. We think we understand when we hear that obedience is possible only where there is faith. Does not obedience follow faith as good fruit grows on a good tree? First, faith, then obedience. If by that we mean that it is faith which justifies, and not the act of obedience, all well and good, for that is the essential and unexceptionable presupposition of all that follows. If however we make a chronological distinction between faith and obedience, and make obedience subsequent to faith, we are divorcing one from the other - and then we get the practical question, when must obedience begin? Obedience remains separated from faith. From the point of view of justification it is necessary thus to separate them, but we must never lose sight of their essential unity. For faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.
Since, then, we cannot adequately speak of obedience as the consequence of faith, and since we must never forget the indissoluble unity of the two, we must place the one proposition that only he who believes is obedient alongside the other, that only he who is obedient believes. In the one case faith is the condition of obedience, and in the other obedience the condition of faith. In exactly the same way in which obedience is called the consequence of faith, it must also be called the presupposition of faith.
Only the obedient believe. If we are to believe, we must obey a concrete command. Without this preliminary step of obedience, our faith will only be pious humbug, and lead us to the grace which is not costly. Everything depends on the first step. It has a unique quality of its own. The first step of obedience makes Peter leave his nets, and later get out of the ship; it calls upon the young man to leave his riches. Only this new existance, created through obedience , can make faith possible. “ Page 21 (The cost of dicipleship)

västergötland, I don’t disagree with Bonhoeffer’s assertion that obedience is linked to faith. I do not believe, however, that obedience can precede faith because this would imply that a sinner can find something in himself upon which to make a “decision” for righteousness. I’m not sure if this is what Bonhoeffer is saying, however.

It is a common criticism that so-called “Calvinists” are proponents of a “cheap grace” where they have license to do as they please because their works are not salvific. But this is not what John Calvin stood for, and certainly not what the majority of the Reformed churches believe. Take a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Heidelberg Catechism and you will see that obedience to God’s revealed will is a prominent theme.

Here’s just one example from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?

Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (a) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. (b)

(a) Gal.3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Deut.27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (b) Isa.64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?

Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace. (a)

(a) Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Question 64. But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?

Answer: By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness. (a)

(a) Matt.7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

västergötland, question 64 above contains the answer to your implied objections to Calvinism.

Greg

At best Bonhoeffer’s statement is confusing and I may agree with him if his intentions is to show that obedience should not be divorced from faith, that obedience is not separate from faith. What I’m afraid he’s stating is that obedience is part of faith, or faith is obedience, and in this way we end with a Romano-Catholic definition of righteousness by faith.

The issue is similar to the two natures of our Lord Jesus Christ, human and divine. The natures are united and will be wrong to separate them, to divorce them one from each other, and on the other hand we will be wrong if we don’t look at them as DISTINCT from each other. As the Council of Chalcedon from 451 A.D. said

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

In a similar way, without separating faith and obedience, faith MUST be seen as distinct, and “the character proper” to faith and to obediences must be preserved.

Reformers used the formula: we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith which is not alone”. Somebody may say that this is splitting hairs, or that they were speaking of both sides of the mouth. Not at all, because there is a huge difference.It is similar to what we found in Ephesians 2

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them Ephesians 2:8-10

“Not a result of works” and at the same time saved “for good works”.

We are justified by faith, apart from works (Rom. 3:28, Rom. 4:4-6). Faith is not obedience, instead is trusting that Christ’s obedience is sufficient for us, that we are justified, counted righteous, we are accepted by God because somebody else’s obedience, because Christ lived a perfect life, fulfilling the requirements of the law for us and instead of us, suffered the curse of law instead of us, and raised for our justification. We are saved from being under sin and under law and are brought under grace. Because of this exchange of status we are no longer married with the law but with Jesus Christ (Romans 7) and we are manifesting the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Far away from being obedience, faith is bare trusting in the obedience of another for being accepted by God, for reconciliation with him, for a perfect standing before God., and for any good gift we will receive from God. Faith is sufficient for a perfect salvation, because Jesus Christ is sufficient.

Gabriel

4. How intertwined the Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment is with the Arminian belief that sinners are faced with a decision to accept or reject Christ. In this view, God does not act unilaterally to save sinners, instead, he waits until the sinner decides to place himself in a position to be saved. And if that decision can be held until death (or the close of probation), backed up by perfect obedience and Sabbath-keeping, God will be moved to apply the blood of Jesus.

Folks, this is scary stuff and this should remind us how closely linked and interdependent Adventist theology is with Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism. Ironically, both Roman Catholicism and Adventism have constructed theological systems that appeal to man’s natural desire to earn salvation. To the degree that anyone follows these systems faithfully, they have accepted a false gospel and their faith may be in themselves instead of Christ.

As the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians, “...we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. ... For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. ... I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Galatians 2:16-21 ESV)

Let us pray for those who are still putting their faith in a false gospel, that they may turn from it and embrace Truth.

I would just like to adress a few things here.  First of all I will admit that the concept of the investigative judgment can very well cause someone to hold to a pelagianism or semi pelagianism view of salvation. (though this view of salvation is not the official view of the church, at least not explicitly stated, though I have met some who have come to the misunderstanding of pelagianism) What I want to address here however is the apparent equating of arminianism and semi pelagianism, and the claim that arminianism supports works based salvation.  (regardless of what SDA theology holds too, I would say to equate arminianism with works based salvation is false)
Here are the fundamental tenets of Arminianism.
- Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
- Salvation is possible by grace alone
- Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
- God’s election is conditional on faith in Jesus
- Jesus’ atonement was for all people
- God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
- Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

I would like to point out that both Calvinists and arminians believe that (1) salvation is by grace alone, (2) humans are not able to make any effort towards salvation, and (most importantly 3) works of human effort cannot contribute to salvation.  The difference is in the next three points and to summarize it is mainly this.  Calvinists believe that we cannot choose God because of our inherent sinfulness, so God choose some and those people because of Gods irresistable grace, they will eventually come to repentance and be saved purely by faith, and that salvation cannot be lost.  Arminians believe that because of our inherent sinfulness we cannot choose Jesus because we are not inclined to do so, (sound familair?) so Jesus died for all, and draws all people to himself, but after being drawn, an individual has the freedom of choice to accept or deny that grace.  (this is not to say that God is unable to draw those to himself, but that he chooses to allow them to choose for themselves, in other words he works on the heart, and acts first since we are unable, but then it is our choice to have faith and accept that grace) The main difference is how many people have been choosen for Gods grace, and do we have the choice (after God choose and pursued us) to reject his grace.  And also after one accepts the grace can they choose later to reject it. 
I am not advocating either view in this post, but am rather pointing out this.  Both believe in total depravity, both believe in salvation by grace alone, both believe works cannot contribute to salvation, the difference is in the scope of the grace and the elect.  (for some or for all) Simply put both Calvinists and Arminians believe in the Gospel; that we are sinners, we dont want God, God pursues us, and only by his grace are we saved from death and sin.  Therefore Pelagianism or semi-pelagianism does not play a part in Arminianism, they are seperate ideas.  Arminians do not subsrcibe to pelagianism.
So to get to my main point, If both believe the important parts of the Gospel, Calvinists or Arminians do need to to pull their guns out and aim them at each other, causing division, but rather realize that you can be a Christian and be a Calvinist, and be a Christian and be an Arminian.  That they do not need to be constantly accusing each other of being heretics, since they agree on the points that really matter.  So why not point both of the groups guns at the place that really matters, the false Gospels.

P.S Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has come up with an interesting hybrid which contains a concept he calls Unlimited Limited atonement.

Greg - 03 February 2008 09:03 AM

västergötland, I don’t disagree with Bonhoeffer’s assertion that obedience is linked to faith. I do not believe, however, that obedience can precede faith because this would imply that a sinner can find something in himself upon which to make a “decision” for righteousness. I’m not sure if this is what Bonhoeffer is saying, however.

Looks to me like the point being made is that just as obediece cannot preced faith, no more can faith precede obedience. Both come together or not at all.

It is a common criticism that so-called “Calvinists” are proponents of a “cheap grace” where they have license to do as they please because their works are not salvific. But this is not what John Calvin stood for, and certainly not what the majority of the Reformed churches believe. Take a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Heidelberg Catechism and you will see that obedience to God’s revealed will is a prominent theme.

Bonhoeffer spends some time exploring cheap grace in the chapter I recomended for reading earlier. If what he writes about it applies to you I do not know. That is one of the things I hope you will comment on when you have read the chapter.

Here’s just one example from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?

Answer: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (a) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin. (b)

(a) Gal.3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Deut.27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (b) Isa.64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?

Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace. (a)

(a) Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

What about this passage? How does it match?

Question 64. But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?

Answer: By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness. (a)

(a) Matt.7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

västergötland, question 64 above contains the answer to your implied objections to Calvinism.

Greg

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 February 2008 09:41 AM

At best Bonhoeffer’s statement is confusing and I may agree with him if his intentions is to show that obedience should not be divorced from faith, that obedience is not separate from faith. What I’m afraid he’s stating is that obedience is part of faith, or faith is obedience, and in this way we end with a Romano-Catholic definition of righteousness by faith.

Which is the reason I at first recomended you to read the whole first chapter for yourself rather than making quotes from it. I see now that I should have continued in that path. If you want to know what Bonhoeffer’s intention was, read the book, and if you do not want to buy it, I have already provided you with a link to the book online. If you do not care what Bonhoeffer intended and what I thus am refering to as I myself read through it, but just like to argue, then we could continue as up to now.

I am not writing this because I expect you to agree with either Bonhoeffer, or with me, but because you are obviously disagreeing with Bonhoeffer before you have made the effort to understand what his point is.

The issue is similar to the two natures of our Lord Jesus Christ, human and divine. The natures are united and will be wrong to separate them, to divorce them one from each other, and on the other hand we will be wrong if we don’t look at them as DISTINCT from each other. As the Council of Chalcedon from 451 A.D. said

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

In a similar way, without separating faith and obedience, faith MUST be seen as distinct, and “the character proper” to faith and to obediences must be preserved.

Reformers used the formula: we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith which is not alone”. Somebody may say that this is splitting hairs, or that they were speaking of both sides of the mouth. Not at all, because there is a huge difference.It is similar to what we found in Ephesians 2

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them Ephesians 2:8-10

“Not a result of works” and at the same time saved “for good works”.

We are justified by faith, apart from works (Rom. 3:28, Rom. 4:4-6). Faith is not obedience, instead is trusting that Christ’s obedience is sufficient for us, that we are justified, counted righteous, we are accepted by God because somebody else’s obedience, because Christ lived a perfect life, fulfilling the requirements of the law for us and instead of us, suffered the curse of law instead of us, and raised for our justification. We are saved from being under sin and under law and are brought under grace. Because of this exchange of status we are no longer married with the law but with Jesus Christ (Romans 7) and we are manifesting the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Far away from being obedience, faith is bare trusting in the obedience of another for being accepted by God, for reconciliation with him, for a perfect standing before God., and for any good gift we will receive from God. Faith is sufficient for a perfect salvation, because Jesus Christ is sufficient.

Gabriel

I think ChiaPet made a good summary of the arminian position. Now perhaps we can stop arguing about those parts where we agree?

västergötland - 03 February 2008 01:36 PM

What about this passage? How does it match?

It matches because anyone who is connected to the true vine of Jesus (by God’s sovereign act) will bear fruit for Him and this fruit will not be burned up.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” (John 15:5-6 ESV)

västergötland , please notice in 1 Corinthians 3:10, at the beginning of the passage you quoted, Paul says he builds on the foundation of Christ “according to the grace God has given”. His implication is that without God’s grace, building upon the foundation of Christ would not be possible. There is, therefore, nothing about this building for which we can take credit, since it all began with God.

Greg

Oh, but it does look like some peoples fruit will burn up, refering verse 15.

ChiaPet - 03 February 2008 10:23 AM

I would just like to adress a few things here.  First of all I will admit that the concept of the investigative judgment can very well cause someone to hold to a pelagianism or semi pelagianism view of salvation. (though this view of salvation is not the official view of the church, at least not explicitly stated, though I have met some who have come to the misunderstanding of pelagianism)

Thank you for acknowledging this. It encourages me that you have arrived at this position independently.

What I want to address here however is the apparent equating of arminianism and semi pelagianism, and the claim that arminianism supports works based salvation.  (regardless of what SDA theology holds too, I would say to equate arminianism with works based salvation is false)

I agree that Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism are not the same, however, they do merge on a common idea, which is that salvation is the result of synergism between God and man. Those holding to the Reformed perspective, on the other hand, hold to monergism where God is the one who does all that is required to save a sinner.

There is a good discussion of the differences and similarities between Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism at this link. Here is the summary paragraph: “While it is clear that Arminian Theology and Semi-Pelagianism have a different view of grace; (Arminianism believes God must initiate with grace and Semi-pelagianism believes man must initiate to receive grace), but both systems ultimately share in common a characteristic - synergism. The question Arminians still need to answer is why do some people believe the gospel and not others? Is the power/desire to cooperate with God’s grace itself a work of the Holy Spirit or of the natural man? How can a natural man produce holy affections without God illuminating the mind and heart? What ultimately makes men to differ? grace or faith?”

Here are the fundamental tenets of Arminianism.
- Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
- Salvation is possible by grace alone
- Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
- God’s election is conditional on faith in Jesus
- Jesus’ atonement was for all people
- God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
- Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

One of the points of Arminianism you listed above is “God’s election is conditional on faith in Jesus”. This statement, in my honest and hopefully humble opinion, is self-contradictory. The basis of “election” is God’s sovereign choice which is made without condition. If we say that God elects those who will choose to have faith, we’re not really talking about election anymore, we’re talking about foreknowledge.

Perhaps it is best to ask where faith comes from, since in the Arminian view, election is dependent upon faith. In the Arminian view, faith is the contribution of man to the work of Christ, whereas in the Calvinist view, faith is a gift. I submit to you that Jesus taught the latter and not the former.

“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Matthew 11:27 ESV)

“But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:64-65 ESV)

This second example from John shows us the problem in the Arminian view that God extends prevenient grace to all, while His grace is only efficacious for those who choose to believe. In this text, Jesus demonstrates the problem of those who don’t believe isn’t that they chose poorly, but that their belief hasn’t been granted by the Father.

I would like to point out that both Calvinists and arminians believe that (1) salvation is by grace alone, (2) humans are not able to make any effort towards salvation, and (most importantly 3) works of human effort cannot contribute to salvation.

I agree that this is where Calvinists and Arminians overlap, but it is in the next points that the Arminian position begins to undermine these initial statements.

...

Therefore Pelagianism or semi-pelagianism does not play a part in Arminianism, they are seperate ideas.  Arminians do not subsrcibe to pelagianism.

The problem, again, is one of synergism vs. monergism. Arminians and Pelagians both subscribe to a system of synergism, while Calvinists subscribe to monergism. These two systems cannot both be true, since they make mutually exclusive truth claims.

So to get to my main point, If both believe the important parts of the Gospel, Calvinists or Arminians do need to to pull their guns out and aim them at each other, causing division, but rather realize that you can be a Christian and be a Calvinist, and be a Christian and be an Arminian.  That they do not need to be constantly accusing each other of being heretics, since they agree on the points that really matter.

I agree. I don’t assume that an Arminian is necessarily a non-Christian, just as I don’t assume that a Calvinist is necessarily a Christian.

So why not point both of the groups guns at the place that really matters, the false Gospels.

This is a good point. I will also say that those who faithfully adhere to the teachings of Ellen White are probably clinging to a false gospel, since the case for her semi-Pelagianism can easily be made. Chia, do we agree on this?

P.S Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has come up with an interesting hybrid which contains a concept he calls Unlimited Limited atonement.

Yes, I heard Driscoll’s sermon on this, although it was awhile ago. I believe he makes the distinction between “common grace” and “redemptive grace”. All men (Christians and non-Christians alike) are under God’s common grace, since we are all beneficiaries of the world He has made for us. But not everyone is saved from their sins and this is where God’s particular grace comes into play. These two ideas are very much in harmony with Reformation theology, by the way.

Greg