Evangelical/Calvinst Discussion

E: So...are you saying that I cannot make the choice to be saved?
C: Not at all. If someone is a Christian, they DO choose Christ. What I am trying to get at is this...why is it that one person chooses Christ and another does not?
E: Well one person understands the message and the other does not. One sees his need and the other does not.
C: So if the one who "sees his need" makes a choice for Christ, then isn't he saved by his choice?
E: Aren't we all saved by our choice?
C: That's what I'm getting at. Let me say it this way. If God only saves us after we make a decision, how then are we saved by grace and not works? Isn't making a choice an act of our will? Yet, we both claim that we are saved by God's grace alone. As Paul said, "For by grace have you been saved through faith."
E: It's both grace and faith in that verse. Notice that the grace comes through faith. I don't think that's controversial. Do you?
C: Where does the faith come from, though? That is, if the faith comes from us without the help of God, aren't we saved by something within us?
E: I don't follow.
C: We both say faith is necessary, right? Well, if that faith originates from our minds or hearts, apart from God, how is salvation an act of God? How is it "God's salvation" as the Old Testament says over and over? Or how is it the "gospel of God" or "of Christ" as the New Testament says? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say it is the "gospel that I believed"?
E: Well we do believe the gospel, right? I don't understand why that's causing this discussion?
C: Let me get the point. How did you acquire the faith to believe?
E: I don't know. I heard the message of salvation one morning and felt the need to respond.
C: But hadn't you heard the message many times in your life?
E: Sure. I heard it all the time - Sunday school, from my parents, from the pastor.
C: Then what was it about THAT time that moved you? Was the pastor more gifted then? Was the music arranged better that morning? Were you already thinking about it during the previous week?
E: Not sure. It just "clicked" that morning. I can't explain it. I knew it was the truth and that I needed to "surrender" to Christ. So I made the decision to be committed to Him.
C: And is it that decision that caused God to save you?
E: Well sure. That's what the Scripture says - "whoever believes in me will never die."
C: Ultimately, then, God "rewarded" your faith. You "earned" the right to be saved by your understanding of the message and your decision to dedicate yourself to Him. How is this NOT salvation by something you did or thought or said?
E: You're putting words in my mouth. You said so yourself that Christians CHOOSE Christ. So what's the difference?
C: Here is the difference. What you can't explain related to your choice, the Scripture does explain. As Jesus said in John 3, "The wind blows where it pleases....so it is with he who is born of the Spirit." Notice the language - BORN of the Spirit. That is, God gives birth to you. And, just like you had no control over your natural birth, so you have control over your spiritual birth. God empowered you with the ability to understand and receive His message. He changed you BEFORE you made your choice. In fact, He had to change you or you never would have chosen Him.
E: Wait a minute....What do you mean He HAD to change me BEFORE I believed? First I had to accept Him, then He began to change me. Your idea is completely backwards. He did His part by dying on the cross and rising again. Now he asks us to do our part by repenting and following Him. After we make that choice, then God indwells us by His spirit.
C: Actually....God's plan of salvation is much bigger and much more involved than "His part" and "my part." E: How so?
C: Let's pick this is up next week. I have to get home. We'll start next time with your question of "why God HAD to change us BEFORE we believed?" Sound good?
E: Yeah. I'll see you soon. 

Sit at My Right Hand: Thoughts on Christ's Rule Part I

Quoting from both Psalms 45 and 110, the writer of Hebrews opens his book discussing the Son's kingship. Using the Old Testament, he states the Son's throne is "forever and ever" and He rules with a "scepter of uprightness...love[s] righteousness and hate[s] wickedness" (1:8-9). Although the kingship of the Son is eternal, ("Your throne, O GOD..." 1:8), a hint of the temporal is made in verse 13: "Sit at my right hand, UNTIL I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." In addition, verse 3 tells us that the sitting of the Son occurred "after he [made] purification for sins." So how can the Son rule from His throne for eternity, yet not sit on that throne until He completed the purification for sins? How are we to resolve this eternal/temporal tension in relation to the Son's rule and reign?

Scripture does not leave us groping in the dark. Understanding and resolving this tension centers on the Person and Work of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. Hebrews 1:3 tells us that the Son is the "exact representation" of God's "being" and that He "upholds all things by His powerful word," a further testimony to His divinity. At some point in human history - about 2000 years ago - God the Son began the work of "making purification for sins." This work, of course, is what is called the Gospel, and has many parts: God taking a human nature (Jesus) and being born through Mary; Jesus obeying the law perfectly; Jesus becoming a curse for His people; Jesus suffering God's wrath; Jesus atoning for sinners' sins, etc. What we discover, then, regarding the kingship of the Son is quite fascinating! The Creator and Ruler of the universe, who holds all things together by His mere word, left His throne for a short time (about 33 years). He lived as one the creatures He created, in a land that He formed, during an historical era that He brought about through His wisdom and Providence. Then, once His purposes for that 33 year journey were completed, He returned to His "natural" abode and "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

But He didn't just sit down. He was invited by God to sit down. Here we see a fuller picture of what those 33 years accomplished. Christ was earning the right to be king. He was meriting the just declaration and invitation of God to rule and reign. To put it another way, the rightful wages of Christ's labor was complete ownership of everything in heaven and on earth. Or, as Jesus said, "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18).

The ramifications of this idea - this truth - are staggering. For, if Christ is presently reigning NOW, only waiting for all His enemies to be made a "footstool for His feet," then how ought we to view the governments of this world? What about the great movements from Monarchy to Democracy to Oligarchical Socialism? Is this movement of the worlds' governments a resistance of His rule or an outworking of Him bringing everything under His dominion? Both? Neither? What about the intellectual and political elites intentionally overthrowing "kings" and "tsars" and "dictators"? Have their intentions been to thwart the concept of "king" from collective conscious? And, on a more personal note, if Christ has the right to rule everything and everybody, how ought we to live? What does His rule say about our "freedoms" and "liberties?" Should we fight for "freedom"?

Great truths force us to ask great questions.