UNREGENERATE ELECT

Before an elect is saved and regenerated, is he accountable for his depravity?

This question comes to my mind in light of a comment by a fellow blogger who stated, "I'm so glad salvation isn't up to us."

I find myself in a quandry over that statement.  While I believe wholeheartedly that the Lord is the ABSOLUTE PROVIDER of my salvation, I also believe it is my responsibility to respond to His provision.  He sets the table and if I don't eat, it is my fault.  He provides the oil and if I don't go get the oil and put it in my lamp then it is my fault when the Bridegroom comes and I have no light.  He provides the Message and it is my responsibility to receive it after I've heard it.

Where am I amiss in this?  selahV 

Comments

[Cyle Clayton]

I'm into short answers nowadays, "Yes," for the wages of sin is death and all will stand before God and give account.

[Luke]

V,
While you may not understand where his statement was coming from, I agree with your thoughts and do not think you are amiss. However, there are many who will try to finely split the "process" of salvation and that is where the confusion takes place. Jesus saved me, yet not apart from my belief. Does that help?

[Byroniac]

SelahV:

Those are good questions. Spurgeon addresses very similar concerns in his sermon, "A Defense of Calvinism." It is good reading, and should answer some of your questions.

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

But the main problem is that we have Scriptures (all ESV) like Ephesians 2:1, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins," and Romans 3:10-12, "10 as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

We, left to our natural condition, do not and cannot desire God or the things of God. We are completely unable to repent and turn to God, because we are dead in trespasses and sins.

However, here is hope: Romans 3:21-22, "21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." And also, Acts 17:30-31, "30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

Here we have two truths that appear to be opposites: the depravity of man and his inability to please God (which requires faith), and God's command to all men everywhere to repent and trust Christ. Scripture teaches both. In fact, the miracles of Christ and His disciples show them giving commands (be healed, rise up, etc.) to people who couldn't possibly obey, yet they did (God worked the miracle through them, picturing salvation). If you stop and think about it, even the Creation account in Genesis is like this. God commands the Light to shine (but how could it possibly obey?), yet it does. This is a mystery, but I believe we can trust the Scriptures.

[Luke]

Byron,
Rather than chasing a rabbit here on V's post, I would ask that you visit me here http://notindarkness.blogspot.com/2007/07/healing-miracles-of-jesus.html on this discussion. You associate the miracles with salvation and I have tried to get interaction about this very point. Otherwise, V, I'll be asking permission to chase a side trail apart from your OP.

[Richard Coords]

Hey SelahV,

Consider these 3 quotes:

John Calvin writes: “First he points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it. Christ says that the elect always belonged to God. God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, not by faith, nor by any merit, but by pure grace; for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393)

One Calvinist explains: “Do Calvinists secretly believe that God chose them for some reason other than their need for salvation? Would I, as a Christian, believe that God chose me for some other reason than my need for salvation? Yes, I do. God chose me for His glory, for His pleasure, for His purposes. Sure I had a need for salvation. But that is not why He saved me primarily.”

The Calvinist answers: “In the Bible, God does not say He chose us because of our desperate need. He chose us before our need ever arose.”

My conclusion (and in answer to your question), is that Calvinists (perhaps subconsciously) feel that they have been eternally mediated with the Father "FOR" the purpose of being given to the Son. Arminians feel that such a view, ultimately circumvents John 14:6, where Jesus says that no one comes to the Father but by Him. Arminians feel that Calvinist theology places one in the good graces of the Father, before he ever trusted in Christ to save him. This is the #1 reason why I've rejected Calvinism. Calvinism reduces the Cross of Calvary to divine pagaentry, and removes it from being a genuine saving act. Calvinists deny this because Calvinists are not straight-forward with themselves, first and foremost. When they are honest with themselves, then they will be ready to honest with others. That's how I feel.

[selahV]

Cyle: but...if they are already elect and their sins have already been paid for by Christ's attonement, then wherein is there anything to explain? As I understand Calvinism (and I'm first to say I'm not at all well-versed in how it pertains to different things), an elect is already predestined for eternal life, so the wages of his sin has been taken care of already. The unregenerate elect are just in a sort of limbo state till the Lord so chooses to regenerate them. Before regeneration, it seems that they are free to be whatever way they so choose. And when God gets good and ready for them to stop their idolatrous ways, He will regenerate them, no? selahV

[selahV]

Hello EVERYONE: I'm excited you all have chosen to help me out here.
LUKE: I can easily see how we may understand this as splitting the "process" of salvation. This is why I am in a quandry. One statement without explanation of another only leads to more questions which, in my not-so-humble opinion, creates confusion. And then the confusion leads to positioning oneself against another's position and for the life of me, I cannot see our Lord making His Way to Himself so very complicated. He stands at the Door and knocks, any who opens the door, He will come in and dwell with them. He IS the Door. He tells us to seek ye first the kingdom of God. He tells us to repent. He tells us to go get the oil, to put on the robe. Each of these things take an action on our part. YES, I do see that the Lord puts His best before us. He has done everything necessary to give us life eternal with Him. He even gave us His Spirit to convict us of our need for Him. His Word that we may hear and know the truth. But it is up to us as to whether we partake of His best. It is up to us to ensure our lamps are filled with oil. How much clearer can He be about that? Am I truly so dense?

Byroniac: so happy to have you pop in and explain this. I am truly appreciative. I understand those verses and the "appearance of opposing positioning. But I can't see the opposing positions. I see the Sovereignty of God. I see His complete ability to provide my salvation (and anyone else's) and His provision for me to give myself willingly to Him as glorifying Him in every aspect of my abandonment to Him. He creates the attraction to Himself and all He is. And it is up to me, (as in the giving up of myself to the desires of my heart to temptation) to come to Him, but in this case the temptation is not evil...it is good.

If we, being capable of resisting sin, seems to me, are equal capable of resisting grace. Or healing, or any other portion of His mercy.

You said, "In fact, the miracles of Christ and His disciples show them giving commands (be healed, rise up, etc.) to people who couldn't possibly obey, yet they did (God worked the miracle through them, picturing salvation)."

Why was it impossible for them to obey? Faith is the key in their healing. And faith is what healed them. They got up as a result of what had already occurred within their exercised faith. God gives us all faith. When we exercise it, the faith produces the results, no?

You said, further: "If you stop and think about it, even the Creation account in Genesis is like this. God commands the Light to shine (but how could it possibly obey?), yet it does."

I just don't find that to be a mystery. I find that to be God making His created Light to be what it was--Light. For man, He chose a different way of interaction. He wants man to desire Him above all other gods. He wants man to honor Him above all other gods. Other gods are in this world because of the fall of satan and the power he's been allowed on earth. But man has the God-given ability to choose God over all other gods. The ability is given to all--what we do with that ability is wasteful and leads to death or fruitful and leads to eternal life.

I may be saying things you've already heard and if I am more simplistic in my thinking than most of the intelligent scholars you dialog with, I beg forgiveness. These are my thoughts as I understand God and His Word. While I find myself looking at scriptures at times which challenge my thinking, I am assured to "fear not" because He has it all figured out, even though He already knows I will never reach that point. I think it is simply because He wants me to remain dependent upon Him. And that is easy for me. I know no other place to go but to the Lord. selahV

[selahV]

Byroniac: thanks for the link. I will go and read it. selahV

[selahV]

LUKE: YOU CAN always chase any rabbit down any trail you want over here. Especially when it comes to talking about Lord and our understanding of Him.

I welcome anyone with any thoughts on any subject to chat here. And you can all dialog all ya want. I may not be able to join in because I am often treading water in the depths of doctrinal topics. But I will enjoy having anything talked about here. Just want everyone to be nice to each other. selahV

[selahV]

RICHARD: THAT just complicates my thinking all the more. Calvin said that? I wonder what would we be teaching in our churches if Calvin and Arminius had never penned a word?

Do all seminaries teach systematic theology of some kind, wherein they base their belief and faith upon what one or more men interpret the scripture to mean? selahV

[Richard Coords]

Hey SelahV,

I would say that if neither had ever been born, we'd still have the same debate as today, because the debate had preceeded them both. Before them, there was the controversy between Erasmus & Martin Luther. I would say that Calvin and Arminius had merely popularized the matter, and put a face on both sides.

By the way, Calvin said much worse. Calvin taught that God created people for Hell:

John Calvin writes: “When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity. It is therefore wrong to say that the reprobate are worthy of eternal destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.120-121)

In other words, the people in Hell are not, first and foremost, worthy of being there, so much so, as they were unconditioanlly elected to be there, even before they were ever born.

Calvin adds: “If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121)

John Calvin writes: “Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing (Prov. 16:4).” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.207-208)

Here's an unfortunately quote from one of my favorite Calvinist pastors:

Calvinist, J. Vernon McGee, writes: “I don’t care who you are or where you are, God created you for His glory. Somebody says, ‘What about the drunkard in the street? What about that crooked man? That lost man--what about him? You mean he’s for the glory of God?’ My friend, this is a strong pill--are you read to swallow it? All of that is for the glory of God. ‘Oh,’ you may say, ‘I don’t like that.’ I don’t remember that God ever asked anyone where or not he liked it. He has never asked me that.” (Thru the Bible: Proverbs Through Malachi, p.56)

[Grosey]

Hi there SelahV,
Time lag kills much discussion!

While the heading says "UNREGENERATE ELECT
Before an elect is saved and regenerated, is he accountable for his depravity?"
I think the issue of regeneration and justification need to be seen separately, less we confuse them.
If I may rephrase the question into categories I am more able by my antipodeanism to answer :) "Are we justified with God before we believe?"

I think there have been interesting statements from various individuals on that question. Something I read by Bunyan some many years ago (lets see.. my Bunyan phses was in the early 80's) lead me to concluude that he viewed the elect as justified in Christ before the foundation of the world?
I can't remember which book said that.

But Personally...
I think its Ephesians 2:1 and Romans 5 that answer that question
Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins ..4 But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, 5 made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved!

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Its better in the KJV I think
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"

I would say that it is at the moment of faith that we are actually justified.

What did Bunyan mean? I think he was viewing it as "in a sense".. that because God cannot look upon sin, He chose us "in Christ" before the foundation of the world.

Chosen "in Christ" had reference for him to being justified, or somehow under the blood, so that God could work efficaciously in us. So that He regarded us not as enemies, but as futire recipients of grace.
( I guess any other evangelical view has the same problem: "How can a Holy God so regard sinful mankind, that His wrath does not immediately break forth, when He desires to be gracious? Is there some way in which God puts "a distance" between our sins that makes us His enemy, so that He can work in us or on us by His Holy Spirit (determined upon your view of Sovereignty)
so that we will and desire (in reformed terms) or are given understanding (in non reformed terms) without destroying us in the process for our sins?

Well, whatever the way, I believe that that which was potential becomes actual at the moment of faith.

Therefore he is accountable for his sin from the moment that.. wait for it.. the moment that he was in Adam when he sinned! :) Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(I would be one of the few that feel that the federal view of the origin of sin does not overshadow what is termed Augustine's view of concuspience. That is, that somehow we were all in Adam when he sinned and so we are held culpable for Adam's sin.
Otherwise it is unjust of God to enact the death penalty upon us for Adam's sin.) Did I just open another can of worms? oooops sorry !

So in my viewpoint dear SelahV and in a few shorter words
"Yes!"

Oh for your enjoyment, one of daughters bought herself a yuppie dog... a labradoodle.. and its fantastic.. (handed in at the pound at 9 months for being too naughty!!) At last, another male voice in the family .. I have been so alone for 23 years!
For male company I used to have to go and chat at the mail box!
Steve

[Luke]

V,
Thanks for your permission to hunt a rabbit. In regards to miracles as pictures of salvation. If that be the case, the man that Jesus put mud on his eyes was told to go and wash. The man DID NOT see until after HE HIMSELF had washed the mud from his eyes. Surely we do not insinuate the man healed himself. Ahhh but we do see the human responsibility to RESPOND to Jesus in order to RECEIVE that which He is willing to do. Another case to consider. The four men who brought their friend to Jesus by pulling off the roof. The man on the bed could not approach Jesus on his own for healing. Are we insinuating that the 4 men helped save the man? The power that healed the man was strictly Jesus' power but if miracles are a picture of salvation, we see the necessity of bringing others to Jesus because if we don't and nobody else does, they will die because they couldn't come on their own. This would GREATLY increase the fervor of evangelism I would think. "IF" miracles are a divine portrait of salvation.

Of course, maybe the miracles in and of themselves were:
1. A fulfillment of prophecy
2. A display of the power of Christ
3. A blessing for those healed
4. Validation for Jesus' ability to forgive

So from over here where I am standing, I cannot see how a "card carrying Calvinist" can hold to the idea that miracles are a picture of salvation especially if we apply the salvation motif to all of Jesus' healing miracles. I did not say they cannot. I said that I cannot see how they can given the ramifications to their own theology if they do.