In the Calvinist view, by not giving them salvific grace to receive. In the Arminian view, by not giving them salvific grace to receive.
My question is: why doesn't God (in the view of Reformed theology) change every person to have a disposition bent towards God - or are there veins of thought within Reformed tradition that allow for this?
So, what's the point of sharing the Gospel with everybody, including people God elects not to save? After all, the elect were already "predestined" for salvation and those not of the elect were already "predestined" for damnation. There really is no choice involved for either group. Both merely do what God decided ahead of time for them to do. The elect can't choose to reject God and go to Hell and the damned can't choose to embrace God and go to Heaven. Why the need for a Gospel? Wouldn't a Gospel need to be preached to people that actually got to decide to either accept or reject it? The elect can't choose to reject it and the damned can't choose to accept it, though.
A person being elect doesn't make them justified. A person is justified by grace Aline, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This is whe many no -Calvinists make a massive leap in conclusions and form a straw man about Calvinists. God ordains the ends (justification & ultimately glorification) but God ordains means to those ends. In Romans 10, Paul writes.... 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!” 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. That's the point in sharing the Gospel. Without it, even the elect cannot get saved. Why everybody? Because God doesn't put anything over someone's head or make them glow or do anything to indicate to us who the elect are.
So, how does one know they truly are of the elect? Accepting the Gospel is not necessarily proof. Many people claim to accept Jesus as Savior that are, presumably, not of the elect and are actually of the damned. Is it just "hope for the best" or something? ???
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, at conversion, is the earnest money... the deposit... the "good faith" that is proof that someone is saved. Seriously, this is nothing to get in a twist over. I'm as dyed in the wool Arminian as you can get, and TrustGsus is a fairly solid Calvinist, but the differences in what we believe theologically about salvation are (a) an inhouse discussion, (b) not determinative of salvation, and (c) separated by the thickness of a piece of tissue paper. Both are merely different versions of a systematic theology, which means, and organized set of thoughts on theological matters that attempt to make logical, rational, complementary, coherent statements about matters of faith. Even inside both systems, sometimes scholars have to say "I don't know." That's cool. The problem with both "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" as they are often portrayed today, on the Interwebz, and, unfortunately, by some preachers, is that the portrayal has almost nothing to do with what either Calvin or Arminius actually wrote. I would challenge anyone wanting to really learn about either system to skip all the writers, commentaries, and pundits, and go straight to the original writings, which are easily found for free on line. By the time you finish reading Calvin and Arminius, you will swear that both preach in the same pulpit, simply looking at various options from two sides of the same coin.
RK, I appreciate the posts you've made on this subject. I think before I was Reformed, my view was sub-Arminian. I think most of the church today is not Arminian, it is something much less. Great advice about going to the sources. Classic authors aren't as difficult as people might think.
I believe that most "Calvinists" today, in the Baptist ranks, are 1 pointers at best. Most "Arminians" today are some weird jam-up of Wesley and Billy Sunday. I'm a Classical Arminian.
If "having the Holy Spirit indwelt in you" is the proof you are genuinely saved, how does one know they genuinely have the Holy Spirit? ???
Aaron, I think RK's recommendation of Galatians is great. I'd also recommend dedicating some time to reading and doing an in-depth study of 1 John. John lists several reasons why he wrote. One recorded in chapter 5 is...note especially verse 13. 11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
"I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." So, are these scriptures saying that if you are truly saved, you are incapable of sinning ever again and that if you do sin, you are, in fact, not truly saved? ???
No. They're saying that as believers, we have the choice of relying on God's Spirit and following His leading, rather than being driven by the lusts of our ego. Giving in to the ego leads to sin, and believers can sin too -- but if we DO sin, we always have forgiveness and restoration available (see 1 John). In contrast, unbelievers can't walk in the Spirit, because He does not live in them. As believers, we can choose to walk in the Spirit, because He lives in us.
Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom God. Does that mean commit them, i.e., as in one act? I don't think so. Lawyers have a practice. Doctors have a practice. What we practice (way/pattern of life)demonstrates who we belong to.
OK, this is what aggravates me. If I step away from a subject for more than a few hours, I have to play catch-up... ??? I'm really going to have to update these emotion icons. RK, you're saying that those verses only deal with God handing out gifts with partiality? Remind me to hire you if I need a good lawyer please.
No, I'm saying that the passage you cited in Acts and in James have nothing to do with whether the atonement is limited, with whether God offers salvation to all, or the issue of whether election=partiality. You just can't take one idea from one part of Scripture and cram it into another spot to try to support a position.