A Debate on the Marks of the Church: First Clarification

By now, if you are reading this at all, you are aware that this is a series of posts on two blogs that are interacting with each other. At the beginning of each future post in this series, there will be a link to The Monroe Doctrine so that the prior post to which I am responding will be available to my readers. Please take a moment to read the post entitled “Church Discipline: an opening response.”

After carefully reading my foil’s opening remarks, it is evident that I did not adequately present the historical Anglican position. In my desire to reflect the mood of what is actually taught to the laity, I missed proper emphasis on what is taught to clergy. Since this will be a series about ideal ideas as opposed to the relative strengths of particular parishes, I will do well to stick to doctrine over practice. In my own future, I will certainly endeavor to make these two congruent. The issue at hand prior to embarking upon the great issue of discipline is the sacraments.

In a discussion of the marks of the Church, it comes as no surprise that each will impact the others in some manner. Therefore, a clear understanding of the theology behind each will shed light on future remarks. We have little disagreement on the correct preaching of the Word. The only differences arise from the different methods of selecting passages from which the sermons are based. Theologically, it is a wash; by emphasis, however, there is a difference that needs to be underscored.

The Monroe Doctrine author (MDA) asks for clarification on the issue of the sacraments. Let us begin with the issues raised regarding the number of sacraments. While it is true that Anglicanism inherited seven from Rome, it is also true that the Anglican Communion holds that only two were instituted by Christ and are worthy of the full status of sacrament. The other five, which I listed before, are worthy only of the title of “sacramental rites.” This is important because the implication here is that there is an involvement of the Holy Spirit in sacraments.

This brings me to my first key point on Anglican sacraments. The 39 Articles join with the Lutheran Augsburg Confession in rejecting the Zwinglian view of sacraments as anthropocentric ritual. By their very institution by Christ, Anglicans affirm that sacraments do not do any work, but rather God the Holy Spirit works on us through the sacraments. The sacraments are a gift from Christ whereby God does something, as opposed to them being a God-given way for us to declare something to Him or man. This is an important distinction, consistent with the views of Augustine, but one that may not be afoul of Presbyterian thinking.

In terms of Baptism, the laity often view Baptism as an open sacrament because of our (mutual) paedobaptism. In actual fact, far more adult baptisms are performed annually than infant baptisms in the Anglican Church. For the Anglican, this idea of an open sacrament is simply not the case, nor do I image that it is for the Presbyterian. As Baptism is a sacrament, a person who is baptized but does not repent and receive regeneration is as much bringing damnation upon himself as is a person who does not rightly receive the Lord’s Supper. The language of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is echoed in terms of both sacraments. Interestingly, Calvin states a similar position in his sermon on Ephesians 2:11-13, including Baptism on equal footing with the Lord’s Supper as sacraments that condemn the reprobate. Articles 25 and 26 predate and actually predict the position of the Westminster Confession on this issue and the next.

The specific issue raised by MDA concerns regeneration. Following John Donne in the seventeenth century is Bishop Arthur Lake who developed the covenant model of Baptism within the Anglican Church. A full understanding of covenant theology in terms of Exodus 19 was outlined. What was also emphasized, however, is that election and covenant inclusion are not synonymous. This speaks directly to the issue of regeneration. While regeneration and Baptism are simultaneous in the elect, this does not deliver the same view of the sacrament as the Lutheran view. Covenant inclusion does not guarantee election, as that is involved in predestination. Many Anglicans will be surprised to find this Calvinist idea in their heritage, but one only has to study the divines to see that this is consistent. Lake is clear to strike at the Armininian idea of free will, preferring the liberation of will through grace that Calvinists will recognize. It is fair to say that this is not espoused by all Anglican clergy, but it is important in our discussion to look at the roots of the denomination for the answers to doctrinal issues. It is clear that Anglicanism has developed a doctrinal mud on this issue, but the roots are more crystalline. The 39 Articles clearly promote a view consistent with the later Westminster Confession.

I think that this puts MDA and me on similar footing concerning the issue of falling from grace. This is simply not possible within the context of a truly regenerated saint. The thought process that led me to that earlier quote was one of appearances concerning the practice of discipline. In good time, we will pound out our differences concerning the reprobate within the covenant community.

Returning to the issue of fencing the table, as MDA has reminded me of that expression, we now have another issue to consider. If Baptism is not only a covenant initiation ritual, but also a true sacrament through which God the Holy Spirit operates, then the reprobate is already condemned from the moment of Baptism. This follows logically from the definition of sacrament. Often, the Anglican laity will produce this terse definition: a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual and invisible grace. This definition is an Anglican truth, but it leaves much on the table for discussion. While not often spoken, the implication of the Holy Spirit being at work in the sacrament is all that Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11. But since the reprobate has already been condemned in Baptism, what further purpose is served by fencing the table?

Again, here is where the view of the Lord’s Supper demonstrates both differences in theology as well as differences in purpose. Because of the activity of the Holy Spirit in sacraments, the role of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is sanctification. While this is similar to the view of Rome, the economy of grace is vastly different. This is not a finite particle of grace for the repudiation of a particular sin as in the Roman Catholic system, but rather more like a recharging of the battery. The Anglican needs this sacrament and feels unhealthy when going too long between. But I would refer you back to the service order for references concerning the confession and absolution that occur just prior to the prayer of consecration. While this may just be a lot of words to some of the laity, the clergy and certainly Anglican theologians take that portion of the service seriously. The absolution is as efficacious in fencing the table as need be, since the reprobate have already condemned themselves in Baptism.

One final point of clarification is the episcopate. While excommunication is among the possibilities of censure from a bishop, I have not heard of it being used with near the same frequency (as in never) relative to the Presbyterian system, again, my point of reference being my conversations with pastors. The bishop is far more likely to deal with the clergy under his charge in a censure than any laity. The issue of parity among ordained elders is a non-issue under the 39 Articles. The authority resides in the position, not the man. A retired bishop has no more authority than any Joe in the pew. We all Western Protestants fell from the same Romish tree. Anglicans feel less compelled to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Rejecting apostolic succession has more to do with political expediency than any theological determinative that I can see at this point.

In closing, I have a humorous observation. While I have chosen to use Luther as my source for the uses of the Law, MDA has selected the same from Calvin. There is little difference other than the ordering of the three. But here is also Luther’s quote on the abuses of the Law.

There are three ways in which the Law may be abused. First, by the self- righteous hypocrites who fancy that they can be justified by the Law. Secondly, by those who claim that Christian liberty exempts a Christian from the observance of the Law. "These," says Peter, "use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," and bring the name and the Gospel of Christ into ill repute. Thirdly, the Law is abused by those who do not understand that the Law is meant to drive us to Christ. When the Law is properly used its value cannot be too highly appraised. It will take me to Christ every time.

– Troll –

(I have not footnoted this blog post as it is not my custom in this blog.)

Election from Dr. Riddlebarger

Sometimes the best posts are links to another's work. 

Dr. Riddlebarger has been running a series similar to my own.  Even though we are going a bit out of order with this, I thought I'd post it.

Election

Troll

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part one

One of the more difficult parts about writing this sort of blog is that my readership is from a variety of backgrounds.  While some can quote chapter and verse from the Bible, others can discuss the nuances of theology.  All have some combination of the two that ranges from weak in both to strong in both.  Therefore, while some posts are necessarily redundant for some, the same post can fly over heads of others.  This is a difficult balancing act, and I beg for your indulgence as I launch into this topic.

Jacobus Arminius lived at the end of the theological century, the sixteenth century.  He was a Dutch theologian who challenged some of the positions of the Reformation, particular those enumerated in the Belgic Confession, a document that I will likely review over the summer unless I do Luther or Heidelberg first.  In any case, the Canons of Dordt contained the five points of Calvinism which were drafted to deal with Arminius’ theology and controversy.  Arminius had written the Five Articles of the Remonstrants, published after his death, to which the Dordt Synod was responding.    

Therefore, it is historically accurate to state that these are theologically opposed perspectives. In other posts, I have highlighted and explained the five points of Calvinism.  They are found under the Building Blocks tab on the right, or by clicking on March, for they were all done in the last ten days of March.  But for this particular post, I have some of the typical questions that are asked about Calvinism.  They are a useful framework for this debate.  Therefore, I’ll give the stock answers from the point of view of Calvinism. 

Since God made man in His image, called his creation "Good", and gave us dignity, is Calvin's Total Depravity literal ?   Perhaps “Total Inability” is a more apt expression. 

This seems like the best place to begin.  In the Building blocks section, I have written a more lengthy discussion on Total Depravity, but let us try just this.  Paul believes that the Law is meant to convict us, to show us what is expected of us, and then to demonstrate that we fell completely short of the mark on every count.  Total depravity does not mean that everyone is equally evil.  This does not mean that the reprobate are incapable of civic righteousness.  Oprah Winfrey does wonderful things for many people, but few, only the most liberal, would confuse her with being a Christian.  Total Inability, although certainly true in the sense of what is intended in terms of works righteousness, also fails to make this distinction.  This is a Two Kingdom issue.  While we may do good deeds and help many people, our motives are tainted by the condition of sin.  Therefore, these deeds fail utterly in satisfying the just wrath of God.  This is about the extreme Holiness of God.  We must be perfect to satisfy the Law.  Anything short of perfection is failure in the eyes of God.  This is why we need a Savior. 

Is there a connection between Calvinism and Determinism  -- the idea that what you do is determined by external things like environment & genes, but not by your free will so that you are not really responsible or accountable?

Responsibility and accountability is exactly the problem.  The idea that God is offended by sin, such that God condemns all sin with the death penalty, is often lost in this debate.  Original sin is the idea that all aspects of humanity are tainted by that original sin.  Unless you understand this concept, the rest will not make any sense.  It is pointless to argue about free will without an understanding of Original sin.  Free will is tainted by sin.  We are able to choose on the horizontal plain of man in this world to do what we like, but all of those decisions, in fact all of the observations and conclusions that we make that form the basis of those decisions, are tainted by sin.  Therefore, we are unable to make a decision in the vertical direction of God, a direction that requires perfection.  That is why it is necessary for God to condescend to us.  He must come down to us to save us.  He gave us the Law to try to make us understand this.  He became incarnate to accomplish this. 

What about people around us who are predestined to be excluded from the "elect" and whose souls are condemned to eternal apartheid ?    Why would God bring a soul into this world inherently condemned to eternal damnation with no ability or possibility to believe in Christ? 

Predestination is very often the stumbling block for this debate.  The concept of election is foreign to many, particularly Americans.  Americans have a particular “can do” arrogance about us.  Many think that Franklin’s quip that God helps those who help themselves is actually Biblical.  Obviously, this is not the case.  We must imagine this problem, not from our own perspective, but from the perspective of God.  God looks upon humanity and sees an ocean of lost souls, completely corrupted by sin.  In His goodness and mercy, God sets about the greatest rescue mission in history.  He will save more souls than can be counted.  He will select those whom He will save and leave the rest.  Therefore, from His perspective, we earn eternal damnation by our own doing, but we receive Salvation by His Grace.  As to why not save everyone?  Who can speak for God?  Some things remain hidden from us.

Calvin seems stern & grim.  He emphasized that Christ took on the penalty of sin.  But redemption also makes us Sons of God, like jewels in which God delights, like a spouse.  We're more than ex-cons pardoned from prison;  The Bible tells us God paid double: Christ took on our sins and He imputed His spotless record on to us.

We are Christ’s elect to be sure.  He will not lose one of us whom He has claimed as His own.  That is what is called the perseverance of the saints.  But we are nothing without Him.  We are doomed without the Righteousness given us by Jesus in His vicarious atonement, with the imputations to which you refer.  There were three great imputations.  Adam's sin is imputed to man.  The sin of Man, elect, is imputed to Jesus.  Jesus' righteousness is imputed to the elect, so that we may stand in judgment on the Last Day, confident in the not guilty verdict.  I do not understand how this message is stern and grim.  This is the Gospel message, and it is the greatest news we can ever hear.  Calvin explains to us that regardless of our imperfection, God has reconciled us to Him.  Propitiation and imputation are not excluded by Calvin; they are embraced by Calvin as the essential components of justification.  That is the Gospel, according to Paul.

We will explore this more as needed.  I'll post specifically on Arminius this week.

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: 15-18, Sin, Election and Salvation

This next section of the 39 Articles will put some stress on the supposedly Arminian bent of the Anglican clergy.  After one more chance to discuss original sin and Christ without sin, we will have a concept of unpardonable sin to discuss.  Election will fill a good deal of the topic this time.  Finally, we will return to salvation in the name of Christ alone.  This will be another dense section of theology and doctrine.

XV. Of Christ alone without sin. 

Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things (sin only except) from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the lamb without spot, who by the sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin, (as S. John said) was not in him. But all we the rest, (although baptized, and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not is us.

While this section seems obvious enough, this is heavily grounded in the idea that while we live, although we are Baptized, we remain under the curse of Adam.  What this means in terms of Salvation and any works righteousness system is that we are doomed to fail in our attempts to keep the Law.  The Roman Catholics exploit this weakness in man in their system of indulgences.  But the Reformed man believes that his sin has been covered by the blood of Christ.  This section affirms the Pauline doctrine of simultaneously regenerated and sinful, as Paul discusses in Romans 6-8.  As we get to Article 18, we will come back to this principle to understand how salvation and just righteousness before God on the Last Day can make sense.

XVI. Of sin after Baptism.

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God (we may) arise again and amend our lives. And therefore, they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

I admit that I am not comfortable with the wording of this Article.  It seems to deny the notion of the perseverance of the saints on one hand, while giving the Pauline model of repentance and renewal through Grace on the other.  The phrasing of the first sentence seems to imply that there are some deadly sins that are unpardonable.  But the second sentence seems to undo that damage.  The rest is a condemnation of the notion that Baptism cleans our slate of original sin.  This idea is alien to the Covenant model of Law and Grace.  Roman Catholics and other works based theologies will argue that Baptism cleanses the person of all sin at that moment and makes him spotless as Jesus was spotless.  The Anglican view and the Reformed view is that man remains under the curse of Adam until death or the Second Coming, whichever comes first.  This leaves room for the imperfection of man without compromising salvation.  There are two expectations of man that result.  Man should not be so arrogant as to believe that anyone other than Jesus is without sin, even after Baptism.  And man needs to repent of his sin from time to time and receive absolution from the office of the church, which will be discussed in the next post.

XVII. Of predestination and election.

Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby {before the foundations of the world were laid) he has constantly decreed by his council secrete to us, to demure from curse and damnation, those whom he has chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only begotten son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at length by god’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. 

   As the Godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of  the spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing Up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it does greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it does fervently kindle their life towards God; So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of Gods predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil does thrust them either into desperation, or into recklessness of most unclean living, no less perilous then desperation. 

   Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

OK, this will be heavy going.  Predestination is specifically mentioned throughout the Bible.  Americans in particular hate the idea that we have no control over our own destinies.  The notion of predestination seems unfair to us.  Justice is not served in this model, we say.  If some were predestined to be a part of the elect, then others were predestined to receive the Wrath of God under the Law.  How can God be just, merciful and full of Grace if He selected some for eternal damnation?

This is going about the problem backwards, of course.  The 39 Articles have spent a good deal of time agreeing with Romans 3.  Now, in this article, we will see agreement with Romans 9.  But let’s not be trapped into bashing Paul.  Predestination goes back to Genesis 25.  How can the unborn twins be predestined to different paths?  Is this just?  Of course it is just.  We are all doomed under the curse of Adam.  We all deserve eternal damnation.  It is by our own doing that we are cursed.  It is by the Mercy and Grace of God that some are saved.  It is not to us to understand why one is saved and another is damned.  But it is only by God’s Mercy and Grace that any are saved at all.

The next paragraph states that we will be so transformed by the knowledge of the Love of Christ that we will act in accordance with His will.  The reprobate, however, will become desperate when they are made aware of their predestination to damnation.  I’m not sure that I agree with this statement.  I would find apathy to be the chief emotion of the reprobate, with denial being a close second.  Regardless, the section ends with the call of the elect to follow the will of God as set forth by the Scriptures.

XVIII. Of obtaining eternal salvation, only by the name of Christ.

They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professes, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture does set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

This seems to be a condemnation of Jews, Roman Catholics, Greeks (in other words all of us) and other applicants of moral codes.  No law of God or man can be followed that will lead to salvation.  Salvation is only through the name of Jesus Christ.  That is what it is to be fallen.

This section has been a rough tumble through some difficult topics.  The idea of election I have recently heard preached in isolation from justification.  The application of Arminian theology to election has no logical connection, and therefore, as you might expect, it turned into and emotional plea to become a better person to demonstrate your election.  It was completely weird.  Without the categories as outlined thus far, election is not just or merciful.  It is no wonder that there is so much resistance to the idea.  The problem is the lack of grounding in Law and Gospel distinctions.  Without understanding Original Sin, the rest of this will never make sense.

The next section will cover Articles 19-21.  They cover issues of the corporate church.  The key issue will be in contradistinction to the Papacy.

--Troll--

Seek, and ye shall find....

Seeker sensitive churches.  Seeker movements.  Seeking God.  Seeking faith.  Frankly, I didn't know that any of those things were hiding.  Today, let us dwell for a moment on the idea of seeking.  Who seeks and what does the action of seeking imply to your theology; these are the questions that need to be asked of all these seekers.  This post is in response to a question that was asked of me some two weeks ago.  I have been overlong in answering and this reply may not be read at this point, but here at last is my reply.  Let's start in the Pentateuch and work forward.  

Notice Deuteronomy 4:29.  On first glance, this is looking good.  From there, you will seek God and you will find Him, if you search with all your heart and all your soul.  OK, let's wait just a second.  There are about four problems for seekers in that one sentence.  From where?  If you read the whole section, this is not looking so good.  From where is from exile if you, Israel, break the Law.  So, basically, Israel is in the position of having already suffered the curses from disobedience of the Law. "If."  Ouch! "If" tends to mean more conditions, more blessings and more curses.  Search with all your heart and all your soul.  Seekers are feeling better at this point.  They have an imperative and they think they can accomplish it.  Never mind that the whole section implies failure on this point, Israel is given a second chance, so that means it must be doable.  Kant's philosophy is the gift that keeps on giving, poisoning the minds of the current seekers to think that they can do what Israel failed to do.  What do we know about our heart?  Jeremiah and Isaiah will tell us about our heart later.  All our hearts and all our souls sounds a bit like perfection to me, does it sound like perfection to you?  

Proverbs gives seeking a review.  Proverbs 1 is so good, it really speaks for itself.  Seeking is down in verse 28, but read the whole thing.  If you still think Solomon thinks you can successfully seek after reading that, go back and try it again.  Who are the fools?  More importantly, who is wisdom?  This is a key passage because the Gospel will refer back to it.  Everyone should see themselves in the group called fools.  Wisdom is from Jesus, and He will lay claim to that attribute later in redemptive history.  Proverbs 8 is more of the same.  Wisdom was with God from the beginning.  Those who seek will succeed.  But look at those last 5 verses.  We are looking at blessings and curses.  Make no mistake about it.  When we are reading the Law, you will fall on one side or the other.  Perfection is the standard according to Jesus.  Can you be a perfect seeker?

Ecclesiastes 8:17 bursts the seeker bubble pretty thoroughly.  Sometimes, you can back up and encompass more of the passage for more context, and all it does it make the situation more vivid.  Notice this referenced passage of Proverbs 25.  It is clear that God has no intention of sharing everything with His creatures.  And so, not only do we have to be perfect seekers to find God, if we can qualify as such, we should expect some disappointment.

In Jeremiah 5:1, the question is asked whether one can be found who seeks the Truth and does justice.  The answer as Jeremiah tells us is no.  In chapter 29, notice that this has swung to the imperative mood with blessings and curses.  This story is about an event that will occur at the time of that writing, has already occurred, and didn't really go the way that Israel would have liked at the end of it all.  So, the question remains: who seeks the Truth?

Amos 8 makes for fascinating reading.  Verses 9-10 sort of describe a particular weekend, one that we annually remember, it might rhyme with Good Friday.  I include it here mostly because the seekers come up short, but this passage is an incredible bit of prophesy fulfilled at Golgotha.  

Matthew 7:7-8 This is my fifth or sixth trip back into the sermon on the mount, and the theme of this sermon has to be put back into the discussion to handle this passage in context.  Remember that this sermon is all about Law.  Each time we discuss this sermon, we have to go back and get the key verses from chapter 5.  The passages in chapter 7 are a set of imperatives.  Moving down to the end of chapter 7 is the imperative that sums up this section:  if you do this, your house will be build on solid rock, but if you don't....  That is the point.  Jesus has set up the imperatives.  He has described the standard.  Jesus has explained the letter of the Law, and it is unattainable.  All of the imperatives within this sermon must be put in this context.  If you do this, you will live; but who can accomplish it?  The answer is that there is only One.  

Luke takes these passages of Matthew out of this context, but the theme of the Covenant of Law versus the Covenant of Grace runs throughout the Bible, particularly Jesus' teachings.  Therefore, it behooves us to view all Law passages in this light, as Jesus is fairly consistent on this point.  But then in chapter 15, Luke turns it around.  It is God who does the seeking here.  Adding the prior section on the lost sheep to the discussion, this is definitely about God who seeks.  Over and over, it is God who seeks his lost sheep.

In John 7 when Jesus tells the officers that they can seek him, but they cannot find him, are we to take this at face value?  Where is Jesus now that we can not longer find him?  Is this a part of the overarching redemptive theme or just a few words for officers who seek to arrest him?  If Jesus is just playing hide and seek with officers, why include it in the Gospel?  The point is that Jesus is going someplace where the rulers of this world have no dominion.  No one can find Him when He is in that place.  He is there right now, from Golgotha until the Second Coming.  Seekers will fail.  It is God who seeks His sheep. 

At last, we come to the defining book on seeking: Romans.  Paul is crystal clear on the subject of seeking.  I have recently done the Building Blocks post on election, and it bears repeating here.  In the classic first half of Romans 3, Paul states that no one seeks God, no one even tries.  He is summarizing the Psalter and it convicts like no other passage in the Bible.  There are no seekers.  Then in Chapter 9, it is God who elects and God who seeks.  

This is difficult for Americans in particular to handle.  We are, by and large, all Arminians.  When we are not Arminians, we have become Pelagians.  We always want to have a part to play.  We think we can contribute to our own salvation.  We are egalitarians by politics and this has made us Unitarians by religion.  The problem is that while this may be spiritual, it is not Biblical.  The Bible is very clear on this point.  We contribute nothing to our own salvation.  Romans 3-5 talks about justification by faith alone.  Paul is exceedingly clear on this point.  We contribute absolutely nothing to this formula.  We receive the gift.  "...and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."  This is from Acts 13:48.  Predestination is part of the doctrines of Calvin and Luther, but more importantly here, we have no part to play in our own salvation.

When God seeks you, how do you know that you have been found?  You know because you believe.  That is the gift of the Holy Spirit that is in all believers.  That is what the Holy Spirit does.  The Holy Spirit is the Seeker who was sent by Jesus to collect His sheep.

--Troll--