Questions that might be calvinist related

[Wootah]

Suppose two people, a and b, agree to build a house. But person a does all the work and by all i mean 100%.

Is there any argument that can be made that person b worked on the house?

--

Suppose two people a and b, are to do an assignment together. But person a does all the work and by all i mean 100%.

Then the teacher asks them and they honestly both tell the teacher their contribution. So the teacher knows.

What marks should each student get for the assignment?

[Wootah]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

I think we agree that person B can't rationally claim to have contributed to the work of A.

[shnarkle]

Suppose two people, a and b, agree to build a house. But person a does all the work and by all i mean 100%.

Is there any argument that can be made that person b worked on the house?

--

Suppose two people a and b, are to do an assignment together. But person a does all the work and by all i mean 100%.

Then the teacher asks them and they honestly both tell the teacher their contribution. So the teacher knows.

What marks should each student get for the assignment?

So how does this relate to Calvinism? Was there some particular aspect of Calvinism that this relates to?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 12 by shnarkle]

My understanding is that calvinists believe that a person choosing to believe in Jesus would be committing a work. But in my house example it seems ridiculous to claim that person b worked on the house.

I think my example is better if person A builds the house and offers it to person B. Does person B accepting the house mean they worked on the house?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 12 by shnarkle]

My understanding is that calvinists believe that a person choosing to believe in Jesus would be committing a work. But in my house example it seems ridiculous to claim that person b worked on the house.

I think my example is better if person A builds the house and offers it to person B. Does person B accepting the house mean they worked on the house?

I always appreciate it when someone comes up with one of these thought experiments because it spurs my thinking as well. I don't think your illustration is accurate though because I don't think Calvin or Paul sees it quite the same way.

Paul would point out that those God has foreordained are conformed to the image of Christ. There is also references to being built up, and it is all according to God's will and purpose. So I think a more accurate illustration would be to show that whatever house we build isn't the one God is working on. We're the house God is working on, or in. He builds or creates us as a brand new creation or building. Buildings don't build themselves. Creatures don't create themselves.

It's also more a matter of being able to see the house in the first place. It's as if person a is walking down a street his whole life and never notices a new house on the corner. Then one day, God reveals it to him. He would never have been able to walk into that house had God not revealed it to him in the first place. This is why free will is a joke in Paul's and Calvin's eyes. It isn't that we don't have free will, but that we can't choose what God doesn't reveal to us in the first place. When we do see it, it's still a no-brainer.

So another illustration would be to point out that there are no a or b persons, but only Christ who is building a house, and you and I are simply tools sitting on a workbench, and we don't know we're just tools until he picks you up and uses you. So we get this idea that we're the one building the house when the reality is that we're just a tool.

People also tend to use this term "believe" quite loosely along with words like "confess" or "profess". We hear people talk of a "confession of faith" as well as a "profession of faith", but a confession is admitting what one has seen. It is testifying as a witness rather than as simply acknowledging what someone else has seen and agreeing with them.

It's the difference between the old testament and the new. Under the old, we agree to abide by God's will as best we can. We contribute our will and effort to the equation as well as an intellectual understanding and acknowledgment of God. The new covenant is completely different in that it is a revelation of God's will manifesting in the newly created creature. It has nothing to do with our will or effort, but God's promise. The ten commandments then cease to be instructions, but promises fulfilled in, with, and through Christ's spirit implanted in the new creature.

Now it is not an intellectual appreciation for doing what is right, but an awareness of Christ's spirit dwelling in, with, and through the new creature. The new creature doesn't go where he wills, he goes where the spirit directs him.

The born again believer doesn't believe what he has not seen, he believes what he sees.

The catch 22 is that you can't actually choose what isn't actually there. So people don't choose to believe in anything other than some doctrines, or ideas. The kingdom isn't an idea or dogma that can be chosen.

When it is revealed, all bets are off. You simply can't choose the kingdom. It's like saying that you walk because you elected to have legs and feet.