I think Calvinists would have trouble a) proving it was all just “potential” early on; is existing in the mind of God, who “knew us before” we materially existed, not a real existence? Just a potential one? The mind of God is not real? Or full?

Then too, Calvinism b) seems to be “deterministic,” to the degree that it supports predestination. And here again, there would seem little chance for many of us; we are automatons, created to following a script written for us before we were born. And be saved or condemned before we were born, by the Calvinist God.

Would things like that, be part of your own objection to Calvinism?

If any of this holds much interest anymore?

Calvinists would agree that it was a done deal in the sense that no one can thwart the decrees of God, which includes His (alleged) decree of who is elect. They would also, however, go on to state that God’s will regarding the elect is joined to a decree that they be made physically actual, not just potential, and that their election occur in space and in time. Consequently, both the salvation of the elect through faith and their evangelization were necessary in order that the potential inherent in God’s will be actualized.

regards,
#John

Want to kick Determinism/predestination around for a second? Like this:

1) SUrely election would mean we are in effect, saved. Therefore election IS salvation.

2) This election and salvation is not only logically, but also temporally early: God knows and determined who is to be saved, even before they are even born.

3) It was all done in advance of our own birth; therefore we had no real free will or responsiblity here. (The dilemma of Determinism). Our works don’t matter.

4) Specifically, evangelization is superfluous: if a) say the means of election is irrelevant, if b) in general our works are useless, and c) it was a done deal all along from the start, then there is no necessity for evangelization. (Or any other work)

5) Indeed, if it was all determined in advance, effective evangelization is an illusion. It was a done deal, long before we ever evangelized others, or were evangelized ourselves.

Re DKA’s comment 15

DKA writes off certain statements as laughable without understanding what is meant by the statements.

From a Calvinist standpoint the foreordained election of specific individuals occurs logically (not temporally) prior to the foreordained means of election. This entails that the elect people will have saving faith regardless of the means chosen by God to accomplish that aspect of his “will”. Furthermore, the number and identity of the elect is thus known before the means are chosen and the number and identity of the elect cannot be changed. In those senses, therefore, election is irrelevant to either evangelism or to Christ’s command.

Evangelism, and Christ’s command to evangelism, are linked to the salvation of the elect because that is the means that God has chosen for the election to be made visible and actual. The selection of that means has a great deal also to do with the fact that God made us as thinking creatures, with ears to hear and mouths to speak. Though the selection of the means of election follows the selection of the elect, the relationship between a particular menas of election and the elect is not a necessary logical relationship.

regards,
#John

[...] Hier der Kontext zum Zitat: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org. [...]

Here’s the problem that I (and possibly John) are posing:

1) Martin Luther said we are saved by “Faith alone,” and not by “works.”

2) But if we are not saved by works, but only by the Grace/election/etc. of God, then that would logically imply that no one needs to undertake the “work” of evangelization. Since no one’s “works” are important.

Seemingly, God will save us; whether we work or not. Whether or not a) we ourselves work on our own salvation; or b) whether or not others evangelize to us.

I thank you for some commonsense answers to this question. But … what about this logical problem? There seems to be a firm contradiction, between the foundational hypothesis of Protestantism, by Martin Luther – “faith alone saves us; not works” – or for that matter of Calvinism – “only God saves us, not our own work” – and the claimed necessity, of the work of evangelization.

Simply: why perform the work of evangelizing, if works have nothing to do with our justification and salvation?

3) We might want to try to make a distinction – as Lisa does? – between “justification” and “salvation.” But the Bible seems to suggest that both are very closely related; perhaps indistinguishable. Or possibly even, the Bible and Protestantism
might turn out to suggest that our “work” is unimportant, even to the most important thing: salvation itself.

God saves who he wills. Whether they work at it or not. Much of Protestantism implies. Which would render all forms of our work – including evangelization – superfluous.

So how do we logically square Calvinism’s emphasis on election and/or salvation, AND evangelization, with Protestantism’s insistence that work is irrelevant to our righteousness, and thence (almost automatically?) salvation?

Maybe someone answered this above?

Thank you, Lisa. As a staunch 5-point Calvinist, I still understand that the means that God has appointed is the preaching of the Word as commanded by the Lord Jesus and further pointed out by the Apostles. The same Jesus who said “Go ye therefore…” was the same One who said “All the Father gives me will come to me…” and I fully affirm both – I proclaim the Gospel, life-on-life, assured of God’s promise that “all who come to Me, I will in no wise cast out”.

Those who make statements like these…

“Election is irrelevant to evangelism, as it is to Christ’s command to go into all the world.”

are honestly laughable -

“Election is irrelevant to evangelism” – if election = justification, which it doesn’t. The elect aren’t born saved – they still have to repent and believe…

“as it is to Christ’s command to go into all the world” – nope, Christ’s command is Christ’s command. I don’t question it, I don’t make it fit my theology, but make my theology serve that command.

For one (of many possible) example, look up the website of my home church, the Metropolitan Tabernacle, and listen to the evangelistic messages preached week in, week out. Minus the evangelical sacrament of the altar call, if you can honestly say that the Gospel is not being proclaimed in earnest to all who are listening, then maybe it is not the facts driving your fatc but a prejudice…

Renton, a Calvinist believes that a person does have to respond to the gospel. How are they going to hear the gospel unless someone is used to deliver it?

You are confusing the work of evangelism with the work of salvation. They are two separate things.

Renton, in discussions such as these, one must be mindful that Calvinists define “freedom of the will” in a completely different way than is done in normal conversation, or by anyone who is not a Calvinist for that matter.

Under Calvinism the significance of one’s work is, in one sense, less than that of a hammer used by a carpenter to drive in nails.
Whether the hammer is used by the carpenter is up to the carpenter and not the hammer, but without the hammer, the carpenter cannot drive in the nails. Whether a christian is used by God to deliver a saving talk of the gospel is up to God, and not the Christian (foreordination again), but without the Christian God will still save the elect (but so far unsaved) person.

On the other hand, the significance derives solely from being chosen by God. “Gee, God used me to lead this person to Christ”.

So, there is no actual logical contradiction, but the whole thing does seem rather pointless, which is why many people describe it informally as a contradiction.

In regard to your post #11, under Calvinism God first regenerates an elect person, then gives them faith, and then saves them on the basis of the faith He gave them.

Personally, I find the whole system as nonsensical as it sounds to most people, and contrary to God’s word as revealed in the Bible (and heartless, and loveless, and futile, and presents an ugly and unglorifying picture of God, etc.), but there are many who do not.

regards
#John

Eh? I’m not saved because I evangelize other people. What are you asking?

And whatever you’re asking, is it an objection to Calvinism, or to all views that say we should evangelize?