Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Funny, Custard, that's what I get from the RCC: sure, you can be a Christian without being RC, but you are not consistent by bypassing Christ's appointed Body on Earth.
God must think the lot of us are a hoot.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Either that, or He is ready to give all of His children some time out until we learn how to behave with each other.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Funny, Custard, that's what I get from the RCC: sure, you can be a Christian without being RC, but you are not consistent by bypassing Christ's appointed Body on Earth.
God must think the lot of us are a hoot.
quote:Ummm, Mousethief, I wasn't being entirely serious with the first part of my post, so there is no need to consider Calvinism to be blasphemy.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Considering that Calvinism is a blasphemy unto high heaven, I'd have to say No.
quote:Don't worry, Zwingli, Mousethief was predestined to that idiotic remark.
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:Ummm, Mousethief, I wasn't being entirely serious with the first part of my post, so there is no need to consider Calvinism to be blasphemy.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Considering that Calvinism is a blasphemy unto high heaven, I'd have to say No.
quote:Like the Nicene and Apostle Creeds?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I have met Roman Catholics who were Christians, or at least claimed to trust only in Jesus for forgiveness and were confident that they were going to heaven. They were few in number, and along the way they had ditched some fairly substantial official RC teaching.
quote:Mousethief, you just might be right.
OTOH I have met Calvinists whose lives didn't match what they said they believed and who probably weren't really Christians. (I'm a Calvinist). I hope that they changed their lives, or at least stopped pretending to believe what they said they believed.
quote:Looks like you'll get to use that headbanging smiley after all ...
Originally posted by Hazey Jane:
[Incidently on my screen on the boards home page this came up as 'Can you be a Christian and a C...' - I assumed it was going to finish '...atholic' and was all set to deploy the headbanging smiley!]
quote:I considered Calvinism to be a blasphemy before your sorry ass came down your mama's baby chute.
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Ummm, Mousethief, I wasn't being entirely serious with the first part of my post, so there is no need to consider Calvinism to be blasphemy.
quote:As in the full TULIP?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(I'm a Calvinist)
quote:Are some people automatically damned to Hell? If you agree with John 3.16, you might have trouble with a few points of Calvinism.
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
How is Calvinism a blasphemy? I'm genuinely curious.
quote:(Yep, it's the Stainer verse)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:TULIP is a later formulation.
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:As in the full TULIP?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(I'm a Calvinist)
Or do you believe that we have the free will to choose whether to accept or reject the offer of redeeming Grace?
quote:Uh, what part of giving his life for "the world" means God also damns someone to Hell?
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
quote:(Yep, it's the Stainer verse)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
Now, I'm no Calvinist (far from it), but do you think that if that were a nice knock down argument against it, Calvinism would still be raging?
Of course it isn't. This line simply tells you that those pre-destined to Hell are also pre-destined to not believe in Jesus. Now, you may find that equally as unbelievable as the first statement, but it's hardly less believable: no reductio here, folks.
ACOL-ite // who's defending logic, not Calvinism, OK?
quote:Possibly you've misunderstood the doctrine of total depravity; I don't see that Calvin (or the Bible) teach that the image of God is wiped out by our sin, only that sin affects every aspect of our being.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
T to me runs afoul of the truth that we are made in the image of God, and that Christ lifted up our humanity to God when He was incarnate. It also is contrary to freewill.
quote:Um, yeah, that'd be me. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
OTOH I have met Calvinists whose lives didn't match what they said they believed and who probably weren't really Christians. (I'm a Calvinist). I hope that they changed their lives, or at least stopped pretending to believe what they said they believed.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Can you unpack this a little? I can see three differing points of view:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh, and my take on the L is that the atonement is limited in application rather than extent.
quote:What I was taught(from the Calvinist perspective) was that God wants/desires all to be saved, no one is worthy of salvation in light of His holiness, and in His graciousness He saves some (though all are deserving of damnation).
Originally posted by Demas:
* God only wants some to be saved, and those he saves despite their own inability (Calvinist)
quote:That is the very reason I think it is a blasphemy also.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Calvinists would appear to believe in a doctrine of salvation and atonement that (as far as the Elect are concerned) many other Christians would agree with - but differ from others in that they think (and I summarise here) that God is an unspeakable bastard to everyone else. Which I believe is blasphemy,
quote:True. I was being hyperbolic. At least, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
but as I don't think we are called to form a judgment on what God is doing in anyone else's life, I don't think is sufficient to take Calvinists out of the Church.
quote:That's almost exactly how a Calvinist writer put it. The word for choosing, was 'choosing by lot.' So, people are not chosen because of what they will do, but because they were chosen by lot, as it were.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Or if you like a God who throws a die to decide whether individuals get into heaven.
Jengie
quote:What a great point. I love every little bit of it, especially the quart in a pint pot analogy. I doubt Calvin was a mystic, but union with Christ is an architectonic idea in his theology that is relatively overlooked by people wanting to turn his theological ideas into either system or debating station.
Poor old Calvin, the most misunderstood and misrepresented thinker ever. Read him and remember that even he didn't't solve the thing to his satisfaction. Calvin was more mystic than logician, unfortunately he seems to appeal to the cut 'n' dried, black and white with nary a shade of grey, protestant school of theology.
Which is a shame really as he has some interesting things in his bag of tricks. T.U.L.I.P. the acronym should be dumped and soon, if ever their was an attempt to put a quart in a pint pot, thats it.
quote:It depends on what you mean by "wants". It's not as simple as saying God only wants some to be saved, as various Bible quotes above have shown (I'm rather relieved to find a thread where I'm not the Bible-quoter, I must say).
Originally posted by Demas:
* God only wants some to be saved, and those he saves despite their own inability (Calvinist)
Would you subscribe to [this] view? Or am I looking at this the wrong way?
quote:Well, I at least think it's relevant to make the case that's consistent to believe both double pre-destination and John 3:16. I happen to not hold to double pre-destination (I think I'm an epistemological indeterminist, but don't bet the farm on it staying that way) for many other reasons, but to claim that John 3:16 provides a straight-forward refutation to it is an insult both to the intelligence of Calvinists and my darling logic.
Originally posted by RooK:
Logic? Logic???
Since when have humans been guaranteed to be swayed by logic? You look at the world around you, and all that has been wrought by humans, and you think that logic is the fundamental underpinning for it all?
ACOL-ite, you're stupider than an inbred garter snake with severe head trauma.
quote:God as victim of multiple personality disorder. I'm not sure that's better than God as red-eyed demon, frankly.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Might be better to say that God wants all to be saved, that the death of Jesus for the sins of the whole world proves this, but that he only effectually calls some — and that this too is an expression of what God wants.
quote:If seeing different possibilities, acknowledging the good in some, and then choosing one = multiple personality disorder, then I suppose you have a point and we are all red-eyed demons.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:God as victim of multiple personality disorder. I'm not sure that's better than God as red-eyed demon, frankly.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Might be better to say that God wants all to be saved, that the death of Jesus for the sins of the whole world proves this, but that he only effectually calls some — and that this too is an expression of what God wants.
quote:Whaaaat?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The Arminian God is like a cat sitting by a mousehole and blinking occassionally. The mice are going to be caught, but one or two might get through.
quote:But that's easy. Because they choose not to.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
MT, unless you are a universalist (and that is not how I understand Greek Orthodoxy) you too are going to have to come up with a reason why not everybody loves Jesus.
quote:It's called either (1) Free Will, or—as Luther expounded it—(2) a Will in Bondage.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
MT, unless you are a universalist (and that is not how I understand Greek Orthodoxy) you too are going to have to come up with a reason why not everybody loves Jesus.
quote:But ends up proving that sola scriptura doesn't work.
I think we need to give credit to Calvin for struggling to find his answer in the Bible. We may not agree with him, but he was no nutter, and put forward the grace of God as strongly as any Augustinian theologian (which is what he was, I insist—among other things).
quote:Grace isn't irresistable.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thank you Gord, I think you just made me decide I am an unconditional Universalist.I was undecided before.
I can tolerate the idea of some sort of Purgatorial state after death, but I cannot believe that God would create people for the sole purpose of sending them to Hell. The only way I can accept the doctrine of irresistable grace is by being a Universalist.
quote:Well at the risk of sounding like a Roman Catholic
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thank you Gord, I think you just made me decide I am an unconditional Universalist.I was undecided before.
I can tolerate the idea of some sort of Purgatorial state after death, but I cannot believe that God would create people for the sole purpose of sending them to Hell. The only way I can accept the doctrine of irresistable grace is by being a Universalist.
quote:At risk of reproducing the argument from the "What if I'm right" thread (somewhere in Limbo), if Grace is irresistable and God is omniscient and omnipotent then God is personally and directly responsible for every single human he created and that was then sent to hell.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:Well at the risk of sounding like a Roman Catholic
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thank you Gord, I think you just made me decide I am an unconditional Universalist.I was undecided before.
I can tolerate the idea of some sort of Purgatorial state after death, but I cannot believe that God would create people for the sole purpose of sending them to Hell. The only way I can accept the doctrine of irresistable grace is by being a Universalist.
“Not that there’s anything wrong with that” – Seinfeld
since when did we get the power to make or break our own doctrines, depending on whether we like them or not?
If God is loving ruler of his creation, then he really does lovingly rule it. We can’t believe that and then make exceptions for the bits where we’d rather he left us alone.
The idea of resistible grace, whilst still wrong, probably causes less difficulty than universalism. If someone could prove that grace wasn't irresistible, I'd go with Arminianism]
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Mousethief, I reckon you have defined "monster" according to a set of ideas in your own head, realised that the idea of irresistible (sp.) grace fits on the "monster" side of the monster/non-monster definition, and then categorised a God of irresistible grace as fitting fairly and squarely with your previously concocted 'monster' definition.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What would it take to prove to you that grace isn't irresistable? Since you already believe in a monster God who would make people just to send them to Hell, what sort of reductio ad absurdam could possibly work for you?
quote:No, it's a bit like thinking that YOUR version of God is monstrous. Which I do. Because it is.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This is a bit like making yourself God. Monstrous!
quote:I don't particularly care to have anything to do with a thread about Augustine.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You lot should all lob into the Augustinian Predestination thread in Purgatory and lodge your objections there, where Levor will probably have a go at answering — I'm sort of like Mini-me to his Dr Evil.
quote:Oh! the irony of being told I'm not smart by Gordon Cheng. I shall treasure this moment.
Also, you guys are sort of Mini-mes to Ricardus's Dr Evil, and he is a lot smarter than any of you so you get to watch and learn.
quote:
Originally posted by Calindreams:
Free will is so over rated.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:No, no, Mousethief. As I said on the other thread, you seem to have a real problem picking irony. This was not it.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Oh! the irony of being told I'm not smart by Gordon Cheng. I shall treasure this moment.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Also, you guys are sort of Mini-mes to Ricardus's Dr Evil, and he is a lot smarter than any of you so you get to watch and learn.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:It's disguised as a thread about St Augustine, but it's really about Calvinism. With about four people on it
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I don't particularly care to have anything to do with a thread about Augustine.
. And lots of lovely long posts.quote:You're not. I'm not. You don't.
Also, you guys are sort of Mini-mes to Ricardus's Dr Evil, and he is a lot smarter than any of you so you get to watch and learn.
quote:Because he was a Calvinist.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And why does St Augustine seem to be the only Father that Protestants like,
quote:Because he was a Calvinist.
and the only one the Orthodox don't?)
quote:Surely that argument eliminates any doctrine about salvation whatsoever?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
To insist that he must limit himself in this area means that we make ourselves God, as we can dictate the terms of our salvation to him.
quote:I don't see how that follows. The terms of our salvation are, accept the offer of salvation from God. How can we dictate terms? We can either accept, or not accept.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think we're still needing an answer from you MT (or anyone) as to why God must allow his grace to be resisted.
To insist that he must limit himself in this area means that we make ourselves God, as we can dictate the terms of our salvation to him.
quote:Well, I am not going to be as confident in my assertions as that. But the only way you would get to my view would be by reading the Bible — sola scriptura — if it was up to me — sola gordonii — there's no way that I would invent a God like the Jesus whom the Bible describes.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
As for saying God *must* do this or that -- the only thing God *must* do is act in accord with Her nature. If you think it is accord with Her nature to create people with no chance of being saved just to send them to Hell to suffer for all eternity, then you are clearly thinking about a different God than I am.
quote:He may, yes. But does he? Is that in keeping with what we know about his character?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If Jesus really is Lord, as we confess, then he may choose to make his grace irresistible. As the beneficiaries of that grace, we have nothing to complain of if that grace proves to be something we can't stand against.
quote:Yes, quite right. If we were God, we wouldn't have to argue about whether we get saved or not.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Surely that argument eliminates any doctrine about salvation whatsoever?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
To insist that he must limit himself in this area means that we make ourselves God, as we can dictate the terms of our salvation to him.
quote:Man, this is an active thread.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
if it was up to me — sola gordonii — there's no way that I would invent a God like the Jesus whom the Bible describes.
quote:Orthodoxy isn't Arminian. May I humbly suggest you do a little more reading about this topic?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think of the two options I don't believe — universalism and arminianism
quote:I can buy the pre-destination as expressed in the fact that we don't choose the time or circumstances of our birth and pretty good chunks of the rest of our life. (To me, that is what the Buddhist "Life is suffering" is talking about.)
Originally posted by Calindreams:
Free will is so over rated. Yes, we get to choose what shirt to wear or whether we go to church. But we don't get to choose when or where we are born, when or how we die. So many things in our lives are pre-destined (or at least not up to us). So maybe in some way it's right that only some are called to the Christian gospel. But called to what? I think it's being called to spread good news.
To save those who are unwilling to be saved does not mean that God is abusing our rights to free will, just as grabbing a drowning person out of a lake before you've asked them if they want to be saved doesn't.
quote:I don't think he weas necessarily relating Arminism to Orthodoxy, I think he was just using it as an example of something he disagreed with.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Orthodoxy isn't Arminian. May I humbly suggest you do a little more reading about this topic?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think of the two options I don't believe — universalism and arminianism
quote:Thassit.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:I don't think he weas necessarily relating Arminism to Orthodoxy, I think he was just using it as an example of something he disagreed with.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Orthodoxy isn't Arminian. May I humbly suggest you do a little more reading about this topic?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think of the two options I don't believe — universalism and arminianism
Right, Gord?
quote:No, God still sets the terms. That is the nature of a covenant. (Hint: We are the weaker party in the covenant.)
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think we're still needing an answer from you MT (or anyone) as to why God must allow his grace to be resisted.
To insist that he must limit himself in this area means that we make ourselves God, as we can dictate the terms of our salvation to him.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Orthodoxy isn't Arminian. May I humbly suggest you do a little more reading about this topic?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think of the two options I don't believe — universalism and arminianism
quote:So which is it then?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Of the 3 you listed we're closest to Arminian/Wesleyanism.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:How do you square this with Matthew 23 v 37-39?
Originally posted by Calindreams:
To save those who are unwilling to be saved does not mean that God is abusing our rights to free will, just as grabbing a drowning person out of a lake before you've asked them if they want to be saved doesn't.
quote:Although I suspect that this is not the place to have a discussion on Judas, Matthew 27:3-4 says he repented, and openly acknowledged his sin. Just more bad luck for those of us who like the idea of forgiveness and a loving God, isn't it?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I don't think the Bible excludes the option of hell as being almost empty (Judas is certainly there, and there is more than one person there, as I read the Bible).
quote:Because not to do so would make man utterly irrelevant. You could have a God that did that, but unless he also extended his grace to all (which is IMO a far more important issue), he would be guilty for all the suffering caused by hell.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think we're still needing an answer from you MT (or anyone) as to why God must allow his grace to be resisted.
quote:To not insist on trying to understand the motivations of God is to not use discernment and to leave the door to evil wide open. Do you think the Father of Lies would hesitate to try to convince others he was God? Do you think that you could see through all his deceptions?
To insist that he must limit himself in this area means that we make ourselves God, as we can dictate the terms of our salvation to him.
quote:Well, yes. Obviously.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
All schemas of salvation that are not universalist neeed to deal with the issue that some people reject Jesus.
quote:It's dead easy to see how.
Originally posted by ken:
A Calvinist might say to you "it is possible that God rejects someone because of reasons of his own" but the alternative - if you believe that Hell is occupied - is to say "it is possible that God rejects someone because they are not good enough". Its hard to see how that is more reassuring for the poor sinner.
quote:The differences mostly have to do with the meaning and mechanism of salvation. The generic description "God wants all to be saved but some may refuse and he won't force them to be saved against their will" is accurate as far as it goes.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
So which is it then?
OK not an entitely fair question, as you said 'close' not the same as, but it would be useful to hear about the differences.
quote:This statement is true of Calvinism too.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The differences mostly have to do with the meaning and mechanism of salvation. The generic description "God wants all to be saved but some may refuse and he won't force them to be saved against their will" is accurate as far as it goes.
quote:-quoted from Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd edition. Volume One: Prolegomena to Theology. (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003) p. 30.
As for the terms "Calvinist" and "Calvinism," I tend to avoid them as less than useful to the historical task. If, by "Calvinist," one means a follower of Calvin who had nothing to say that was different from what Calvin said, then one would be hard put to find any Calvinists in the later sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. If by Calvinist, one means a later exponent of a theology standing within the confessional boundaries described by such documents as the Gallican Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism, then one will have the problem of accounting for the many ways in which such thinkers — notably, Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf, Bartholomeus Keckermann, William Perkins, Franciscus Junius, and Gulielmus Bucanus, just to name a few — differ from Calvin both doctrinally and methodologically. One might even be forced to pose Calvin against the Calvinists. Given the diversity of the movement and the fact that Calvin was not the primary author of any of the confessional norms just noted, the better part of historical valor (namely, discretion) requires rejection of the term “Calvinist” and Calvinism” in favor of the more historically accurate term, “Reformed”.
quote:OK, so of these...
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It's not about Calvin, it's about Calvinism.
And God reaching into our heads and making us want to be saved is a perversion of the phrase "not against our will".
quote:which?
— notably, Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf, Bartholomeus Keckermann, William Perkins, Franciscus Junius, and Gulielmus Bucanus, just to name a few —
quote:But from our point of view both outcomes look the same - we repent & are saved. That God knew all along that we would or wouldn't makes no difference to what we feel and see and do. Even that God chose us to repent before creation makes no obvious difference to the effects of our reprentence. When we repent and have faith we can know we are saved by the grace of God - and byt the strength of God, not the strength of our faith or repentence. A Christian who is a little bit faithful is not thereby a little bit saved. If we don't repent & have no faith & we can't know that (though we can still hope & pray that the grace of God is extended to such people)
Originally posted by GreyFace:
ell, when someone recognises that they're a sinner, they can take the eternal viewpoint, in which case if they're a reprobate God has always known that and they've been fucked since eternity, or they can take the temporal viewpoint and attempt to repent. The eternal viewpoint is hopeless, we can't change the outcome and if we're in the wrong camp it's God's doing.
quote:But this myth is so close to what Calvinism almost says - the myth of the sinner who would attempt to repent if God chose to grant him the ability.
Originally posted by ken:
There is a myth of the sinner who attempts to repent but is somehow not permitted to by God, but that comes more from psychological Scottish novels than Christian doctrine.
quote:As Paul argues in Romans 9. Or Jesus in John 17:12. But it's a shadow of the doctrine of predestination, rather than a symmetrical process — a sovereign decision to leave people in their deadness as contrasted with a specific act to make them alive in Christ.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The contentious part of Calvinism as it's presented (I don't know that this is what Calvin thought) is not predestination but that predestination to reprobation was God's plan from the beginning.
quote:I like this summary.
Calvinist seem to argue that if they are wrong, God is not sovereign. Free-willers argue that if they are wrong, God is evil.
quote:Of course, a bit later you get Newton's clockwork universe. So the model of a God who, in Mary Midgley's phrase, builds and winds up a clock and then punishes it for striking fits neatly into this era.
I wonder if a lot of what passes for Calvinism is a case of the world influencing the church. As I don't think Calvin was a Calvinist - much too wooly as some have said. However those who latter tried to follow him especially in the Netherlands were living in a time when philosopers such as Spinoza were denying free will. Thus the world view at the time was that things were (pre-)determined.
quote:Well, yes, but here lies the difficulty - I know you're an intelligent person and you know it already, but just for the record - that we find it difficult to think in an eternal mode, not unreasonably since we live within time, and so we tend to think sequentially.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As Paul argues in Romans 9. Or Jesus in John 17:12. But it's a shadow of the doctrine of predestination, rather than a symmetrical process — a sovereign decision to leave people in their deadness as contrasted with a specific act to make them alive in Christ.
quote:Indeed. God limiting himself is scriptural (e.g. Phil 2:6 'He emptied himself assuming the condition of a slave') and I've long thought that Calvinists are more bothered about God's sovereignty than God is. Whereas God being evil is certainly not scriptural!
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Myself, I think the disagreement is at the philosophical level of what it means to be free, but the consequences for our perception of God can be severe. Calvinist seem to argue that if they are wrong, God is not sovereign. Free-willers argue that if they are wrong, God is evil. Neither is true but I'd rather risk the former error than the latter.
quote:This doesn't match up with anything I know about Arminianism. It has to be said that given the fact that when I hear Calvinists talking about Arminianism I almost always go 'but that's not what how I understand Arminianism', I do wonder whether my view of Calvinism is similarly distorted. Are we just talking past each other?
The Arminian God is like a cat sitting by a mousehole and blinking occassionally. The mice are going to be caught, but one or two might get through.
quote:They become universalist?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In fact... I'll think I'll ask the question explicitly. How does a non-Universalist Calvinist that believes in scriptural inerrancy, or at least has a very high view of Scripture, cope with the passages that say God wants all to be saved?
quote:God's sovereign and moral will. In that God morally wills some things (ie that people should not kill each other) but sovereignly wills another (that men should kill Jesus and thus achieve the salvation of the world)
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In fact... I'll think I'll ask the question explicitly. How does a non-Universalist Calvinist that believes in scriptural inerrancy, or at least has a very high view of Scripture, cope with the passages that say God wants all to be saved?
(Preview post is my friend...)quote:Could you elaborate please, Lep, in the specifics of how God can will all to be saved yet refuse to save some?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
God's sovereign and moral will. In that God morally wills some things (ie that people should not kill each other) but sovereignly wills another (that men should kill Jesus and thus achieve the salvation of the world)
quote:Well, not really I'm afraid, because I'm not claiming to understand it. (And I'm sorry if that's a cop-out, I've been told off for making such comments in Purg before, but I really don't understand it - ultimately it seems easier to say that if you have a strong doctrine of God's sovereignty, because ultimately my understanding or lack thereof can't thwart God's purposes, but anyway)
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Could you elaborate please, Lep, in the specifics of how God can will all to be saved yet refuse to save some?
quote:I assume you're using Arminianism as a catch-all for any position that involves free will in some form. I appreciate your honesty on the question, by the way.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Arminianism I suppose can't merely take the "God wants everyone to be saved" at face value either, unless they are willing to say God can't save everyone.
quote:Or that the definition of salvation in use, is wrong.
If you think he CAN but doesn't, then there must be something else God wants more than for everyone to be saved.
quote:Indeed. I understand that - but it does leave you with the idea that God thinks us choosing to love Him is more important to Him than Him loving us.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I assume you're using Arminianism as a catch-all for any position that involves free will in some form. I appreciate your honesty on the question, by the way.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Arminianism I suppose can't merely take the "God wants everyone to be saved" at face value either, unless they are willing to say God can't save everyone.
Incidentally, I am willing to say that I suspect if any are lost it's because God can't save them - because it's logically impossible. This is compatible with the view that love must be freely chosen.
) - thanks Callan for fixing it.
quote:If all he wanted was to love, he could have created a bed of nice begonias. But for some reason he created beings with at least the semblance of the power to love him back -- or withhold that love. That must have been important to Him.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I understand that - but it does leave you with the idea that God thinks us choosing to love Him is more important to Him than Him loving us.
quote:Maybe it does, but I'm suggesting not that God wants us to love him because that's His need, but rather that ultimately, salvation may be logically meaningless and impossible without it.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I understand that - but it does leave you with the idea that God thinks us choosing to love Him is more important to Him than Him loving us.
quote:I can see the logcial difficulty - but I suppose you would then have to argue that God is constrained by logic - which I'm not sure is true. The incarnation for example, or the Trinity are both pretty hard to explain in logical terms.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Maybe it does, but I'm suggesting not that God wants us to love him because that's His need, but rather that ultimately, salvation may be logically meaningless and impossible without it.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I understand that - but it does leave you with the idea that God thinks us choosing to love Him is more important to Him than Him loving us.
quote:Or read CFW Walther, including his 25 theses taken from Law and Gospel.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:They become universalist?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In fact... I'll think I'll ask the question explicitly. How does a non-Universalist Calvinist that believes in scriptural inerrancy, or at least has a very high view of Scripture, cope with the passages that say God wants all to be saved?
Or read Karl Barth & get so confused they don't know any more?
quote:I'm fascinated by the extremely binary view of free will being presented on this thread - that either we are completely free agents, responsible for our own decisions even unto Hell, or our free will is constrained and thus meaningless (and thus our love and life also meaningless).
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Incidentally, I am willing to say that I suspect if any are lost it's because God can't save them - because it's logically impossible. This is compatible with the view that love must be freely chosen.
quote:Answer to question 1. Yes and No
Originally posted by Demas:
Does a small child freely choose to love their mother? Is that love meaningless?
quote:Agreed. I wonder what "free" actually means. I tend to avoid using the term in relation to "will" because the more it's talked about the more confusing it becomes. It is a philosophical problem with wide-ranging ramifications, whether or not it is discussed from a theological angle as well.
Originally posted by Demas:
I'm fascinated by the extremely binary view of free will being presented on this thread - that either we are completely free agents, responsible for our own decisions even unto Hell, or our free will is constrained and thus meaningless (and thus our love and life also meaningless).
Does a small child freely choose to love their mother? Is that love meaningless?
quote:I would say you were being disingenuous but that's not my call. In this discussion, "free" means "free to choose for itself without outside interference (i.e. from God) whether to accept or reject God's offer of salvation."
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder what "free" actually means.
quote:And yet, I think I know what he means. All of our genetics, all of our experience, our current environment and so on all go into influencing our decisions. I can't say that God left me free to choose without interference, and I hope he never does. I'll almost certainly bugger it up.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I would say you were being disingenuous but that's not my call. In this discussion, "free" means "free to choose for itself without outside interference (i.e. from God) whether to accept or reject God's offer of salvation."
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder what "free" actually means.
quote:But that would imply uncaused choices which I'm sure no-one believes.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
In this discussion, "free" means "free to choose for itself without outside interference [...]"
quote:Choices are always subject to influences, which may have some effect on the perceived options. But the influences need not be overwhelming. I may "find the lady" despite all attempts by the conjurer to deceive me and "force" me to pick another card.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But that would imply uncaused choices which I'm sure no-one believes.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
In this discussion, "free" means "free to choose for itself without outside interference [...]"
quote:I think if you had left in my gloss of what I was using "outside interference" to mean, it wouldn't be nearly so difficult to understand.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But that would imply uncaused choices which I'm sure no-one believes.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
In this discussion, "free" means "free to choose for itself without outside interference [...]"
quote:You are exaggerating, surely? I can think of many counterexamples to this. The first one that comes to mind is, "here is a true Israelite in whom there is no guile." Or, "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah." Then there's the beatitudes.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak.
quote:All 3 examples refer to individuals and people in who God's grace has worked to bring about spiritual change.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:You are exaggerating, surely? I can think of many counterexamples to this. The first one that comes to mind is, "here is a true Israelite in whom there is no guile." Or, "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah." Then there's the beatitudes.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak.
No, I cannot square what you say with the Gospel.
quote:Even when we do good, our Lord assumes that we are evil:
Mark 7:20 And Jesus said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mark 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
quote:
Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
quote:Well you've rigged this debate clearly so I can't even score points. Suit yourself.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All 3 examples refer to individuals and people in who God's grace has worked to bring about spiritual change.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Well you've rigged this debate clearly so I can't even score points. Suit yourself.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Lets at least get the whole verse...
Originally posted by Mousethief:
"Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah."
quote:
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
quote:The ones which are essentially blessing human inadequacy and weakness because of God's grace and strength? Still doesn't suggest there is anything inherent in us to be blessed...
Then there's the beatitudes.
quote:It doesn't say that. You're reading your theology (or rather anthropology) into the text.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They mourn over the poverty of their spiritual state! Not because their aunties have died.
quote:This is getting too personal and I can't see how why you would make a gratuitous reference to Gort, who has not posted on this thread.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Proof not assertion please. Or at least, an interpretation that fits better. Otherwise we'll have a Purg thread filled with witty oneliners and we might as well just take it back to Hell and get gort involved..
quote:Would the word imperfect help here? Here are four examples of Jesus and the imperfect.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak. We're so bad, even the good bits are bad!
quote:I really think Luther's concept of humans having wills, but those wills are in bondage to sin, as having some sway here.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I would say you were being disingenuous but that's not my call. In this discussion, "free" means "free to choose for itself without outside interference (i.e. from God) whether to accept or reject God's offer of salvation."
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder what "free" actually means.
quote:The same hope a Jewish tax collector had in Palestine when Jesus was living, I would guess. Remember that a Jewish tax collector was roughly akin to a traitor.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A key undergirding idea here is our moral failure and our shortcomings, confirming the idea that Jesus’ view of the sinfulness of human nature is bleak. If even the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is not enough, what hope have the rest of us?
quote:I think that if someone was arguing Pelagianism here, Gordon, this would be a good response, but who is?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do we have any evidence that it is in our power to choose good as a general rule of our life, let alone choosing God?
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak. We're so bad, even the good bits are bad!
so that the problem of free will is not just a problem to do with God's sovereignty (although it is that), but a problem of our ability.
quote:I don't doubt that Calvin believed this, nor that Calvinists would agree with it, but it is an unhelpful definition precisely because so would many other Christians. I can see much scope for quibbling over your choice of words, and for genuine disagreement about the assurance of salvation, but broadly, you are right that many (most? all?) Christians agree with you in substance.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
A Christian must be a Calvinist, not necessarily wearing that name or even knowing who John Calvin is, but believing in their heart that they are evil (Total Depravity), that only God is good (Unconditional Election), that only God can save them (Limited Atonement) and can do all that he chooses (Irresistable Grace) and that they are forever in the arms of Jesus Christ by grace (Perseverance of the Saints).
quote:My view is that Calvinists (generally, and those of them that I know and love) necessarily believe conduct to be true of God which if it were done by any other entity, they would (one hopes) reject as unjust and wicked. It seems to me they would rather believe the Bible to be true than God to be good - or at least, that they would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The best we can seek to do is work with the evidence as we have it. That is all each of us are trying to do, hence I don't think that the "vile and evil heresy which makes you not a Christian" language is all that helpful.
quote:John Wesley did not misunderstand Calvinism but called Calvinism "a most deadly enemy." His hatred of the Truth in attributing the doctrines of grace to the devil, showed that he lived the life of one who was unregenerate.
A definition whereby John Wesley or George MacDonald are Calvinists isn't helpful.
quote:I would suggest that Calvinism in a narrow sense is most definitely defined by the Synod of Dordrecht... from where the five points come from (in respose to the Arminians). In a wider sense all Christians who mourn over their depravity and sin and fall before the sovereignty of God are Calvinists in spirit... despite not understanding all the finer points. This is not to suggest that one can be an Arminian and a Calvinist. Arminianism is not a misunderstanding or ignorance of the Truth of sovereign grace... but a deep hatred for it... in preference for the sovereignty of man and free will.
Since Calvin said much that all Christians would agree with 'Calvinist' is more sensibly used to mean NOT 'someone who agrees with the substance of what Calvin believed' BUT 'a Christian who follows Calvin where he differs from other Christians'.
quote:The Bible and not our own depraved natures dictate what is good and pleasing. Let God be true and every man a liar. The Bible can not be at odds with God as it is a reflection of the mind of God.
It seems to me they would rather believe the Bible to be true than God to be good - or at least, that they would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
quote:Most who claim the term 'Calvinist' would be shocked to find that Calvin did not believe that God desires to save the reprobate. Calvin uses the term 'offer' as did many of the Refomers in terms of its latin root 'to present'... and not as a 'used car salesman' would use the term. Here is Calvin writing against Pighius:
But Calvinists seem to be arguing that it is right for God in that situation both to make an offer of grace and to condemn that person. But this means that God's nature in this situation is both to have mercy and to condemn us. Since these are opposite responses, it follows that the nature of the Godhead must be in conflict with Itself, thus violating the principle that God is simple.
quote:I was half-expected to be shot down in flames for suggesting this - thank you for confirming the point.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
The Bible and not our own depraved natures dictate what is good and pleasing. Let God be true and every man a liar. The Bible can not be at odds with God as it is a reflection of the mind of God.
quote:Oh, it seems I am a Calvinist after all, if that's the definition. Although I feel bound to point out to you that by this test, the unregenerate Mr Wesley slips in as well. You'd better review the definition quickly, before he ends up being saved against God's sovreign will. [/sarcasm]
In a wider sense all Christians who mourn over their depravity and sin and fall before the sovereignty of God are Calvinists in spirit...
quote:Worded that one a bit loosely. "Make an offer of grace" means "grant grace" or "grant the means to receive grace" (thank you, londonderrry). "Condemn that person" means condemn them without granting them grace - i.e. a diametrically opposed response.
Originally posted by me:
But Calvinists seem to be arguing that it is right for God in that situation both to make an offer of grace and to condemn that person. But this means that God's nature in this situation is both to have mercy and to condemn us.
quote:I'm not (here) arguing against Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I'm objecting to the way that, according to Calvinists, the "whatever way is right", in identical circumstances, seems to vary between two opposite responses, thus making God inconsistent.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
You suggest that 'God must respond to our condition in whatever way is right.' Yes and this is why God was not merely able to forgive our iniquites with a wave of the magic wand. God sent His son to fully pay the price on the cross for our transgressions.
quote:When we attempt to judge the Word of God which as I said earlier is a reflection of the mind of God... we are in effect attempting to just God based on our own sin tainted conscience and system of ethics. God's Word must be the lamp to our feet (not with our own system of ethics illuminating God's light.)
Not only does this seem to me a moral imperative, it is also sound practical sense - all the real intellectual progress I've made in my faith has been because I've struggled with teaching that conflicted with my morality.
quote:If you believe that you are totally depraved by nature than you agree that by nature you are purely evil and void of anything that could justly be called good? Is that what you are saying?
Oh, it seems I am a Calvinist after all, if that's the definition. [/sarcasm]
quote:John Wesley did not believe that one must be born again by the grace of God in order to be saved... and therefore did not believe in total depravity... but salvation by works (despite what deceptive semi-pelagian language he used).
Although I feel bound to point out to you that by this test, the unregenerate Mr Wesley slips in as well. You'd better review the definition quickly, before he ends up being saved against God's sovreign will.
quote:Warfield taught that the church experiences what he called "progressive orthodoxy" through history and when the Truth of God is clearly set out (eg. Nicea, Dordrecht, etc.) and rejected in its essence regarding the tenants of the Christian faith (Trinity, Sovereign Grace, etc.) than heresy is exposed. Any gospel that teaches a "salvation" plan that is conditioned upon the works and will of man is one of works and not the gospel of grace outlined by Scripture.
Would you care to explain at what point misunderstanding or error becomes hatred of truth
quote:If you are referring to John Wesley than I would point out that John Wesley claimed that he wasn't saved (as late as 1767):
and let us know by what spiritual authority you are empowered to know the thoughts of men's hearts and make the distinction?
quote:Smells to me like a circular argument.
That the Reformed Synods have already demonstrated from the Scriptures the error of Arminianism and that it is in effect the Pelagian heresy resurrected from hell.
quote:On the question of Calvinism the Scriptures are at best ambiguous, otherwise this debate would not be possible. You are presumably arguing that accepting God's grace constitutes a work, and that Arminianism is therefore salvation by works. The question remains as to whether this is what Scripture means by a work. The Reformed Creeds say it is. Arminius and others disagree. Why should I trust the Reformed Creeds' interpretation of Scripture over Arminius'?
The Scriptures alone are authorative on the subject and the Scriptures teach that any gospel that conditions salvation on the works of man is accursed (Gal 1:8-9). The Reformed Creeds merely summarize what the Scriptures affirm.
quote:Agreed, God's undeserved mercy is grace. Granting grace to some and not to others, when they are in identical circumstances, is inconsistency.
What you view as 'inconsistancy' is called 'grace' in Scripture... God's undeserved mercy.
quote:If you removed all the bits in brackets in the above I could probably agree with you.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
A Christian must be a Calvinist, not necessarily wearing that name or even knowing who John Calvin is, but believing in their heart that they are evil (Total Depravity), that only God is good (Unconditional Election), that only God can save them (Limited Atonement) and can do all that he chooses (Irresistable Grace) and that they are forever in the arms of Jesus Christ by grace (Perseverance of the Saints).
quote:Hi GreyFace,
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Londonderry:
"who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
1 Tim 2:4 (ESV)
Please explain how Calvinism handles this concept.
quote:But unlike God, they are not omnipotent. This kinda throws a wrench in your lovely analogy and makes it completely inapplicable to God.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They, like God, want two different things and only one of those things can come to pass.
quote:No it doesn't. We can even want two things that are in our power to achieve and end up choosing one over the other. Jelly for dessert, ice-cream for dessert, jelly and ice-cream for dessert, or wanting to lose weight and skipping dessert altogether. I can want many things and cause one to come to pass.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:But unlike God, they are not omnipotent. This kinda throws a wrench in your lovely analogy and makes it completely inapplicable to God.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They, like God, want two different things and only one of those things can come to pass.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I was agreeing with your statement and identifying myself with:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
If you believe that you are totally depraved by nature than you agree that by nature you are purely evil and void of anything that could justly be called good? Is that what you are saying?
quote:Those are different things. If you can't see that they are different (when you wrote them), forgive me if I consider you to be equally unreliable in discerning the meaning of Scripture.
all Christians who mourn over their depravity and sin
quote:Where does it say in your quote that Wesley claimed that that he was not saved? It doesn't.
If you are referring to John Wesley than I would point out that John Wesley claimed that he wasn't saved (as late as 1767)
quote:I actually read that, and guess what I found? Apparently St Peter, that rock on which Jesus wanted to build his Church? Not a Christian! Condemned, in fact. An accursed heretic. St Barnabas, too. Dear me, but Wesley's in good company.
If you are referring to Arminians in general... I would point out: 1. What the Scripture affirm in Galatians 1:8-9 and 2.
quote:You haven't answered. You simply assert that salvation by works is heretical. Granted that (which by no means all Christians do, unless St James is to join St Peter in condemnation), it is still a heresy that a Christian might honestly believe. She might believe it because she believes it to be taught with authority (much as you believe Calvinism has Scriptural and Reformed authority) even if she dislikes the idea.
Would you care to explain at what point misunderstanding or error becomes hatred of truth and let us know by what spiritual authority you are empowered to know the thoughts of men's hearts and make the distinction?
quote:One cannot truly mourn over their wickedness if they claim that some of their wickedness is actually good.... or be humbled before God while they are insisting on "some" of their natural goodness. Wouldn't you agree? Scripture teaches that the natural man is wholly wicked in his entire person (Genesis 6:5; 8:21, etc.)
Those are different things. If you can't see that they are different (when you wrote them), forgive me if I consider you to be equally unreliable in discerning the meaning of Scripture.
quote:According to our old nature we are still totally depraved by nature. Yet as Christians the old nature does not have complete dominion over our person in thanks to the work of God. Our mourning over sin is not our gift to God, but God's gift and work to us in our lives (Ephesians 2:8-10).
I can mourn my depravity and sin without believing I am void of all goodness. Indeed, if I were truly void of goodness, why would I mourn?
quote:"I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen."
Where does it say in your quote that Wesley claimed that that he was not saved?
quote:No. Because Wesley believed in a conditional gospel that he himself said was a "hairsbreadth" from salvation by works. One can say as Wesley did that on the one hand we are saved by God's grace and than take everything that you said back with the other hand by setting human conditions.
My point was that, saved or not, Wesley makes it into your stated definition of Calvinist for mourning sin and worshipping God.
quote:Yes, and this shows the seriousness of the sin that Peter was engaged in and why Paul confronted him (Galatians 2:11). The difference is that when Peter was confronted with his error, he repented and confessed the truth.
Galatians 2 makes clear that St Peter was once (wrongly and insincerely) guilty of the fault that St Paul condemned in Galatians 1:8-9 - he acted as if a particular external work (circumcision) was necessary to accept the gospel.
quote:If Peter had not repented of his heretical teaching when confronted, than Peter would have been put outside the church. I think the forcefulness of Paul in Galatians is very clear on that point.
I'm sure you will agree with me that being wrong didn't in fact put him outside the church. Then it must follow that the circumcision party at Antioch was also wrong, but not necessarily outside the church.
quote:No. Arminianism (Pelagianism) is not a petty difference, but a conditional gospel that teaches human sovereignty and natural human goodness. It is not the Truth.
And that the wrong side on the [Calvinists]/[Arminians and friends] debate, whichever that may be, is also wrong but, praise God, may yet be saved.
quote:Apologies if I did not answer you question. When one is confronted with the plain teaching of the Scriptures on the subject of grace (eg. The Reformed Confessions, etc.) and rejects such teaching and calls them "evil" than they most clearly have crossed the line of misunderstanding and over to hatred. Dordt for example warns such people:
Would you care to explain at what point misunderstanding or error becomes hatred of truth...
quote:I am not suggesting that all error is damnable heresy... but that a false gospel that teaches a salvation conditioned on man... cannot save anyone. It is a good fit with the heresy confronted by Paul in Galatians.
1) Think that error is always hatred of truth?
quote:No. This is only a reaffirmation of the condemnation of Scripture.
2) Think that error becomes hatred of truth if the error has been condemned by the Authority of the (reformed) Church?
quote:No. It becomes damnable heresy when it teaches that by fulfilling certain conditions, a man can be justified of the law (no matter how small those conditions are (eg. "exercise your free will, etc.)
3) Think that error becomes hatred of truth when it differes from a reformed view of Scripture?
quote:Only by those who hate the free grace of God and love their own righteousness.
The problem you have is that Calvinism is itself seen as a heresy.
quote:No. The Scripture clearly teach it and the true churches of God have affirmed what the Scriptures teach as truth.
Your defence of it is that men you affirm to be totally depraved and void of all goodness have taught it.
quote:Ultimately Scripture (John 12:48). And where Scripture speaks... we are to speak. Scripture teaches that (Galatians 3:10): "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
Who can say without presumption that we are not both saved?
quote:Hermeneutics 101 teaches us that we are to compare Scripture with Scripture and use the clearer Scriptures to interpret the ones that are not as clear. All cannot mean everyone head for head in v. 4 or else it would also have to mean everyone head for head in v. 6. and that is the heresy of universal atonement. Scripture teaches an efficious will of God that always achieves it's desired end:
Isn't that at variance with the principle of the perspicuity (plain meaning) of scripture?
quote:I agree that there are Christians who disagree about the "free offer" and desire of God in the gospel, although I do think it is a serious error... but not a damnable one (unlike arminianism).
It really is possible for good and sincere folks to see these things differently.
quote:If someone truly believes that Jesus is Lord ("kurios") than they believe that Jesus is the sovereign lord and one cannot attempt to stand on a equal footing with God by negotiating salvation with human works (arminianism) and still fall down before their sovereign lord. There is no place for pride or self righteousness in truely believing that Jesus is Lord.
As a further example, please consider Romans 10 v 9-13
quote:No. Men deny the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc. all the time and still put up what they consider to be a "biblical" defence.
On the question of Calvinism the Scriptures are at best ambiguous, otherwise this debate would not be possible.
quote:A work ("ergon) is anything that we undertake to do. Despite the denial of arminians to the contrary, they are attempting to contribute to their salvation by their own works them they forcefully insist that it was an act of their own will that led them to be saved. They are in effect, attemptint to steal what rightly belongs to God... namely his glory in innitiating and sustaining our salvation.
You are presumably arguing that accepting God's grace constitutes a work, and that Arminianism is therefore salvation by works. The question remains as to whether this is what Scripture means by a work.
quote:God is not below some form of ethical framework, but is only in subjection to Himself and his own righteousness. God is never inconsistant with Himself or his nature. It is true that God deals differently with men, but this is not inconsistancy "within" God... but a sovereign choice to save some and reprobate others. If we have elect sinner "a" and reprobate sinner "b" it is true that there is no natural difference between them. Both are equally "full of evil", but the fact that God saves the one by paying the price himself is not inconsistant. God owns both of them and is free to do as He wills with what He owns. We often forget that we are not our own. The Heidelberg Catechism says is very beautifully when it says in Question 1:
Granting grace to some and not to others, when they are in identical circumstances, is inconsistency.
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
If Peter had not repented of his heretical teaching when confronted, than Peter would have been put outside the church.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
What?!? ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
and the irretrievably lost – those whom God calls and predestines to accept Him intellectually and then to fall away. Presumably because (and this is the real problem I have with Calvinism) God likes playing vindictive little games with His Creation. quote:Yes, it is an issue, and something that I feel I must resolve in order to be able to confess Christian belief.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's possible I haven't seen the problem here. You seem to think it is an issue that 1 Timothy 2;4 is true and yet (on the calvinistic, and i would argue biblical view) some are condemned.
quote:If you'll forgive me, you're just restating the problem without attempting to come up with any coherent explanation of why this is so. I would suggest that what you're not quite saying is, it's more important to God that his Son be murdered than that the murderers do not murder and you're dodging the question of what it is that separates God's competing desires.
My answer, and as I say it may be that I haven't seen the problem clearly, is that God can want two things and yet only one of them can come to pass. eg "Thou shalt not murder" — yet it was the plan of God that his Son be murdered. Two conflicting wills, one outcome.
quote:This is a consequence of your own theology and I do not share it. It suffers from condemnation of those who have not openly confessed their faith and usurps, in my opinion, Christ's role as judge of the living and the dead. I note that you were careful only to condemn those who have heard the message and rejected it, and I would point out that this seems to imply that one is better off not hearing the Gospel. Calvinism seems to me to be shot through with these inconsistencies.
There are plenty of analogies in our experience. If you pray "Your kingdom come" you are praying that God would return to separate the sheep from the goats in final judgment. Yet this would involve judgment on any friends and family who knew the truth about God and continued to refuse to bow the knee to Him or acknowledge him in any way as their Lord, or allow even that knowledge of Him is possible. Yet Christians pray that those who don't know God would come to know him and love him.
quote:Only in a Calvinist framework. I can throw post-mortem evangelism into the mix and open up the possibility of Universalism even in Calvinist soteriology, and to deny it I think you would have to deny the validity of a deathbed conversion and thus the parable of the workers.
Such prayers contradict our desire that God would come to judge the world with justice.
quote:Well, okay, you are making a reasonable argument here, but you haven't stated the basic Calvinist assumption, which is as far as I can tell, that God desires the eternal torment of some sinners more than he desires the salvation of all. I can see the Scriptural passages that lead you to believe this, but it looks to this non-Calvinist as though you can't see the others, and the overall themes and meaning of God throughout history calling, not forcing, his people to love and trust him. I don't know why this is.
By the way, this example doesn't require that you subscribe to the beliefs I've just outlined. All it requires is an acknowledgment that Christians can and have thought in this way and, in so doing, not involved themselves in irreconcilable contradiction. They, like God, want two different things and only one of those things can come to pass.
quote:I wonder how happy you would be to discover at the Last Judgement, londonderry, that you yourself were reprobate. Would you simply shrug your shoulders, confess that God is loving and merciful in spite of his decision not to save you, and steel yourself to submit to annihilation or eternal torment, praising God as you went?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
God is never inconsistant with Himself or his nature. It is true that God deals differently with men, but this is not inconsistancy "within" God... but a sovereign choice to save some and reprobate others. If we have elect sinner "a" and reprobate sinner "b" it is true that there is no natural difference between them. Both are equally "full of evil", but the fact that God saves the one by paying the price himself is not inconsistant.
quote:There's plenty for me to think about in your excellent post, GF, but I'm just going to pick this one out as it's pretty close to the heart of the question of justice in Calvinism.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I can throw post-mortem evangelism into the mix and open up the possibility of Universalism even in Calvinist soteriology, and to deny it I think you would have to deny the validity of a deathbed conversion and thus the parable of the workers.
To me, these issues all demand answers, and Calvinism's answer seems to be at best "we don't know why" and at worst "because God hates some people unreasonably and arbitrarily".
quote:Not praising God.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I wonder how happy you would be to discover at the Last Judgement, londonderry, that you yourself were reprobate. Would you simply shrug your shoulders, confess that God is loving and merciful in spite of his decision not to save you, and steel yourself to submit to annihilation or eternal torment, praising God as you went?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
God is never inconsistant with Himself or his nature. It is true that God deals differently with men, but this is not inconsistancy "within" God... but a sovereign choice to save some and reprobate others. If we have elect sinner "a" and reprobate sinner "b" it is true that there is no natural difference between them. Both are equally "full of evil", but the fact that God saves the one by paying the price himself is not inconsistant.
quote:That's an unusual explanation of what TULIP means.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
A Christian must be a Calvinist, not necessarily wearing that name or even knowing who John Calvin is, but believing in their heart that they are evil (Total Depravity), that only God is good (Unconditional Election), that only God can save them (Limited Atonement) and can do all that he chooses (Irresistable Grace) and that they are forever in the arms of Jesus Christ by grace (Perseverance of the Saints).
quote:Okay, let's take the me-and-God out of this.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Not praising God.
Rev. 16:10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish
Rev. 16:11 and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.
quote:I think you are missing my point and playing off at some other field. Of course Peter was predestinated and could not have lost his salvation, but hypothetically if he was not elect and had persisted in his error, he would have been disciplined by the church (just as the Judaizers were.) Pelagianism is not a minor error but on the scale faced by the apostle Paul with the Judaizers... the principle error being a conditional (on man) 'gospel'.
so pardon me if I don’t point out all the ways in which you are wrong and just shoot at this open goal:
quote:I started playing on your field. You moved the flags.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I think you are missing my point and playing off at some other field.
quote:Please answer the question. Of course St Peter was wrong, and seriously so. But because we know he was elect (had already accepted God and been saved) at the time he made this error, we can know that it was an error which the saved are free to make. If he was free (while saved) to so err, he was free to persist in that error. While he persists in error is he still saved?
Of course Peter was predestinated and could not have lost his salvation, but hypothetically if he was not elect and had persisted in his error, he would have been disciplined by the church
quote:No.
Londonderry, are you prepared to answer Luigi's question, and my own?
quote:A Christian can stumble into serious sin (eg. David, etc.) but will always be brought back to repentance by the grace of God.
While he persists in error is he still saved?
quote:No. I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
You seem to be saying that anyone who grants any role at all to human will in salvation is not saved.
quote:1) Suppose I hold that I am free to accept or reject salvation, but in all other respects I put all my trust on God's unconditional offer made to me regardless of my merits. Is that "conditioning salvation on the works, will, etc. of man"?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
quote:?
anyone who grants any role at all to human will in salvation is not saved
quote:Are all doctrinal errors damning? Or just this one?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
quote:It's not a doctrinal error, unless we confuse (as some do):
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Are all doctrinal errors damning? Or just this one?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
quote:Why not? Too difficult for you?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
Greyface:
quote:No.
Londonderry, are you prepared to answer Luigi's question, and my own?
quote:Yes. You make the arbitrating factor... your will rather than the grace of God.
1) Suppose I hold that I am free to accept or reject salvation, but in all other respects I put all my trust on God's unconditional offer made to me regardless of my merits. Is that "conditioning salvation on the works, will, etc. of man"?
quote:There is no dispute that man has a will and that a man's will has a role in salvation, but it is an entirely passive role and cannot innitiate salvation, condition salvation or play the determining role in salvation. Salvation is all of God's free grace. Salvation is innitiated by God, conditioned on God alone and determined by God.
2) If it is, how is this different from saying (from my last post): "anyone who grants any role at all to human will in salvation is not saved"
quote:Is man free to reject God, then? If not, how can he be said to have a will?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
There is no dispute that man has a will and that a man's will has a role in salvation
quote:Arminians in my limited experience do the same, but are less open about it. So, for example, nearly every Arminian I know would acknowledge that God through his sovereign choice at the very least allows circumstances to arise which will effect someone's response to the Gospel either positively or negatively, yet will judge them according to how they respond to that message at that time.
Originally posted by Eliab:
My view is that Calvinists (generally, and those of them that I know and love) necessarily believe conduct to be true of God which if it were done by any other entity, they would (one hopes) reject as unjust and wicked. It seems to me they would rather believe the Bible to be true than God to be good - or at least, that they would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
quote:As a sola scripturist I prefer to approach this question from the other side. Does Scripture address us as if we have a will? Yes, always; and calls upon us to respond accordingly. (All the usual texts, you know them, eg anywhere in John 10 or the whole of John really).
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Is man free to reject God, then? If not, how can he be said to have a will?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
There is no dispute that man has a will and that a man's will has a role in salvation
quote:I'm right behind you on that one. So is not the fact that we're called, persuaded, and not magicked into obedience, rather overwhelming evidence that we are given freedom to choose?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I choose to believe that the Lord is not perpetrating a massive fraud upon us in addressing us this way.
quote:We are given a choice, yes. But as a sola scripturist I choose to take seriously the passages in the Bible that insist that God in his sovereignty predestines us to choose him. (Ephesians, Romans...)
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I'm right behind you on that one. So is not the fact that we're called, persuaded, and not magicked into obedience, rather overwhelming evidence that we are given freedom to choose?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I choose to believe that the Lord is not perpetrating a massive fraud upon us in addressing us this way.
quote:Dordrecht (Head IV, Articl XVI) put it quite scripturally when it said:
Is man free to reject God, then? If not, how can he be said to have a will?
quote:Fire away. I think I owe you a few answers
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But now I have a question for you, GreyFace.
quote:Not entirely. If we're given freedom to choose, if freely chosing is a component of salvation, there is no reason that I can see to assume that nearly everyone will be saved.
Your position approaches universalism - am I correct in thinking that?
quote:I agree, if that's what Universalism is. It's not, in the we-have-free-will version. The free will version of Universalism believes that God's love will eventually win everyone over, that everyone will freely choose him in the end, that no-one's self-will will be strong enough to damn them for eternity against God's contingent will, that Christ's redeeming work is sufficient for all people to be saved.
Isn't universalism itself a form of coercion? You will love Jesus, eventually, like it or not.
quote:What do you mean by "accept the open-ness of God"? Is this shorthand for the position that says you can accept Jesus without recognising Him as such? (Genuine question.)
All of this talk about duplicity in the mind of God and whatnot is equally true of Arminianism unless one is a universalist or accept the open-ness of God.
quote:Really? I would have thought it a much more plausible charge that Arminians will strain their interpretation of scripture to any extent rather than disturb their view of God's goodness. I'd deny the charge, of course, but I think it is much more likely to stick than the opposite.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Arminians in my limited experience do the same, but are less open about it.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Calvinists [...] would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
quote:OK that works. You couldn't really have this view and be a Universalist I think.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Of course, freedom implies risk, so it's possible that not all are saved, and my reading of Scripture (for what it's worth) is that it is at the very least, possible to miss out on eternal life.
quote:Yes. Of course, God knew she would agree. This is the interaction of free will and omnipotence - predestination. I agree with Boethius, I think.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do you include in your view then the risk that Mary could've said 'no' to the angel?
quote:Ricardus,
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you mean by "accept the open-ness of God"? Is this shorthand for the position that says you can accept Jesus without recognising Him as such? (Genuine question.)
quote:In other words what we used to call "heresy" once upon a time. Leads directly to panentheism, pelagianism, annhilationism, and lots of other nasty little isms.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The open-ness of God is a fairly new theological movement which claims that there are certain aspects of the future that God does not know. It's fairly complex and I don't understand it fully, but ISTM to be saying that God knows what he will do in the future but not what any of us will do.
quote:ISTM that this confuses predestination and foreknowledge. God could foreknow what was going to happen without predestining it. But if he didn't predestine it, then we are back to Mary and all her potential successors having the power to say know and God standing by rather helplessly, knowing it is going to happen yet not having the power to change things.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Yes. Of course, God knew she would agree. This is the interaction of free will and omnipotence - predestination. I agree with Boethius, I think.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do you include in your view then the risk that Mary could've said 'no' to the angel?
quote:This is a pretty important question, isn't it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it heretical to deny the principle of divine simplicity? If so, I would submit that Calvinism is heretical.
In the Calvinist view, we all come before God in an identical condition: total depravity. God must (logically) respond to our condition in whatever way is right: that is, in whatever way is in accordance with His nature.
If it is right for Him to save someone in that condition, then He must save us all (Universalism). If it is right for Him to make someone an offer of grace, then He must do so to everyone (Arminianism).
But Calvinists seem to be arguing that it is right for God in that situation both to make an offer of grace and to condemn that person. But this means that God's nature in this situation is both to have mercy and to condemn us. Since these are opposite responses, it follows that the nature of the Godhead must be in conflict with Itself, thus violating the principle that God is simple.
quote:I agree that Calvinism is very logical. Logically, I can understand Limited Atonement. It is very logical but, it is not, in my view, consistent with the view of God in Jesus. I find Wesley's Arminianism much more consistent with that. Opening wide his arms for us on the cross, dying for all even those 'who will not turn to him', pouring himself out for us, seeking the lost.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree with you that Wesleyan Arminianism doesn't make much sense - I find Calvinism far more logical and have much more respect for it.
quote:This is an important part of Calvinism, it seems to me, but I"m not sure how Biblical it is -- where in Scripture does it say that God's greatest desire is for his own glory?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory
quote:Hi Mousethief
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:This is an important part of Calvinism, it seems to me, but I"m not sure how Biblical it is -- where in Scripture does it say that God's greatest desire is for his own glory?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory
quote:This is hardly surprising, given that glory belongs to God and to him alone:
Ex. 14:17 And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen.
Ex. 14:18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.”
quote:Nor is this necessarily incompatible with the good and wellbeing of those whom God blesses as he brings glory to his own name. What is surprising, however, are occasional passages where God’s glory and the good of the Israelites are placed in contrast to each other. Ezekiel has this classic statement:
Psa. 115:1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory,
for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!
quote:(Bold mine)
Ezek. 36:19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them.
Ezek. 36:20 But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.’
Ezek. 36:21 But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came.
Ezek. 36:22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.
Ezek. 36:23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
Ezek. 36:24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
Ezek. 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you
<snip>
Ezek. 36:32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.
quote:Would you believe that I was dictating my words to the computer and it made the error? Oh… I didn’t think so.
originally posted by me:
Mary and all her potential successors having the power to say know
quote:Actually, it seems to me that an omnipotent God could not, because God is always free if you like to modify or not modify the future as seen from a particular point in time. You will rightly point out that this is compatible with both Calvinism and the other theologies we're discussing, but that's no surprise as we're all basing things on Scripture.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
ISTM that this confuses predestination and foreknowledge. God could foreknow what was going to happen without predestining it.
quote:I actually agree with you about limited atonement. That's why I would call myself a four and a bit point Calvinist.
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:I agree that Calvinism is very logical. Logically, I can understand Limited Atonement. It is very logical but, it is not, in my view, consistent with the view of God in Jesus. I find Wesley's Arminianism much more consistent with that. Opening wide his arms for us on the cross, dying for all even those 'who will not turn to him', pouring himself out for us, seeking the lost.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree with you that Wesleyan Arminianism doesn't make much sense - I find Calvinism far more logical and have much more respect for it.
What is it that doesn't make sense about Wesleyan Arminianism?
Carys
quote:I would suggest that any of these passages can be seen in the light of this - that bringing honour and glory to God's name, in the perception of any observing humans, is for our benefit. I don't believe God is enhanced by my perceiving his glory, or damaged by my failure so to do.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It’s striking how often the central aim of the events of the narrative have nothing to do with Israel and her rescue, and everything to do with God bringing honour and glory to his own name.
quote:Presumably it's to the benefit of Egypt to know this.
And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.
quote:Total unsurprising if one views Israel's role as primarily to act in a priestly capacity internationally, that is, to show God's glory to the whole people of Earth.
What is surprising, however, are occasional passages where God’s glory and the good of the Israelites are placed in contrast to each other.
quote:See? It's because they damaged God's reputation among the nations. To the detriment of the nations, because worshipping God and our own well-being are not only not incompatible but actually, to my mind, in some ways an identity.
But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came.
quote:And so on...
And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
quote:How then is his glory enhanced by displaying it to us? His glory is surely, from an eternal point of view, in what and who he is, not in what he has displayed to humans. I conclude therefore that any display of his glory is for our benefit out of his love, and although I admit this might be my human failing, an interpretation that has God refusing to help those in desperate, ultimate, eternal, horrific need does not bring him glory as much as, oh for instance, the one that has God incarnating, suffering and dying for all.
Wouldn’t Trinitarian theology teach you as much? What I mean is, in both Orthodox and Catholic tradition, the Son gives glory to the Father, the Father gives glory to the Son, and the Father and the Son together are glorified by the Spirit. This has been so from eternity to eternity, certainly before there was any creation for the Creator to relate himself to. Therefore God seeks his own glory and has done so from eternity.
quote:The problem comes if you say that only Christians are saved, because whether or not one becomes a Christian may be affected by all sorts of things that have nothing to do with repentence - Christianity is not self-evident, so to become a Christian you must either take a shot in the dark or work through a process of deductive reasoning. All sorts of purely social factors might put someone off Christianity - to take an extreme example, one cannot imagine a Moor expelled from Spain seeing anything good in Christianity - and if we are going to have people arbitrarily barred from the Kingdom, "God's sovereign choice" is a better reason for it than "society". I think this is what Leprechaun is getting at.
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:I agree that Calvinism is very logical. Logically, I can understand Limited Atonement. It is very logical but, it is not, in my view, consistent with the view of God in Jesus. I find Wesley's Arminianism much more consistent with that. Opening wide his arms for us on the cross, dying for all even those 'who will not turn to him', pouring himself out for us, seeking the lost.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree with you that Wesleyan Arminianism doesn't make much sense - I find Calvinism far more logical and have much more respect for it.
What is it that doesn't make sense about Wesleyan Arminianism?
Carys
quote:I'm confused by this, and you seem to misrepresent Arminianism. I would say that God does not sovereignly arrange a person's life circumstances. A person's life is determined by their free will, the free will of other people, and by events in the natural world. If someone has a bad experience and rejects God it is their choice. Other people have bad lives and still accept God, some have great lives and reject him.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I think is illogical about Arminianism (aside from the fact it means one must do some very creative exegesis) is that it is supposedly predicated on human choice, yet most Arminians I know want to maintian the sovereignty of God over things like life circumstances etc. Now if God knows the future, and sovereignly arranges some people's life circumstances that they have very negative experiences of Christianity so they reject it, and does nothing to change that, so they end up rejecting Christ - well in what sense has he not chosen? There is so little difference as to make none at all.
quote:Do. He's bloody brilliant. The Consolation of Philosophy is one of the all-time great books.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I haven't read Boethius
quote:I think you concede too much to the Calvinists. Calvinism is certainly not logical.
Originally posted by Carys:
I agree that Calvinism is very logical.
quote:I am not in the least bit confused.
Originally posted by leonato:
You confuse foreknowledge with predestination - God knowing the future and sovereginly arranging the future are not the same thing.
quote:I have never been called a Liberal before. How novel.
quoth Eliab
Calvinism EITHER (liberal, Leprechaunite view)
quote:I think I see the problem. The problem appears to me to be that you are convinced that we will all be judged on what we do in this life alone and that the only criterion on which we will be judged is whether we had faith in Christ. Which, as isn't often pointed out, is not a moral judgement at all if we had no say in it.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What is the difference between "knowing what someone will do, knowing it will lead them to Hell, being in control of the cirumstances that lead them making such a choice, and not doing anything to stop them" and "choosing that they will go to Hell"? Not very much I submit.
quote:Well perhaps. But I was attempting to critique Wesleyan Arminianism - not what you are presenting which I think veers from Arminianism towards universalism, without quite reaching that destination.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb]
But this, as someone famous once said, contradicts the plain reading of scripture. In my humble opinion. As well as being apparently thoroughly unjust if God's selection criteria are arbitrary, as appears to be Calvinist teaching.
quote:I don't see this. If God's glory is unsurpassable, how can He seek glory by any other means than simply being Who He is?
I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory—expressed when he is seen as being true to his own revealed word— rather than (our versions of) what justice and mercy must look like.
quote:I would say pretty much all the options being presented here give exegetical difficulties, which is why I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Which difficulties you consider worse than others depends on the weight you give to separate themes in Scripture.
Ah, but saying non-Christians are saved (post-incarnation) then leads to even more exegetical difficulties and even more contradiction of basic themes of the Bible.
quote:God choosing whether or not a person goes to Hell is vastly different from predestining that person to Hell. Foreknowledge with omnipotence is NOT predestination.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What is the difference between "knowing what someone will do, knowing it will lead them to Hell, being in control of the cirumstances that lead them making such a choice, and not doing anything to stop them" and "choosing that they will go to Hell"? Not very much I submit.
Foreknowledge, with any measure of power to change the future (never mind omnuipotent power) is, effectively predestination.
And that's not even starting on all the life circumstances over which people have no control whatsoever.
quote:Not so, or at least no more so than any form of Calvinism that is agnostic on the fate of those who aren't openly meeting the criterion of open confession of faith in Christ at the moment of their death. Free will could potentially result in enormous numbers of casualties. I hope for Universalism because I trust God knows what he's doing, and I believe that if people are lost it will be against God's contingent will.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
not what you are presenting which I think veers from Arminianism towards universalism, without quite reaching that destination.
quote:Well, I can't see how the moral responsibility for people going to Hell is any different on God. "Free" choice, outside the circumstances of life (over which we have no control) is a fiction.
Originally posted by leonato:
God choosing whether or not a person goes to Hell is vastly different from predestining that person to Hell. Foreknowledge with omnipotence is NOT predestination.
quote:Then so is morality and this life is a puppet show.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
"Free" choice, outside the circumstances of life (over which we have no control) is a fiction.
quote:'Liberal' in the sense of being open to more ideas than your own. Not 'liberal' in the sense of being sceptical about belief/tradition/authority.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I have never been called a Liberal before. How novel.
quote:None at all, if circumstance determines choice.
What is the difference between "knowing what someone will do, knowing it will lead them to Hell, being in control of the cirumstances that lead them making such a choice, and not doing anything to stop them" and "choosing that they will go to Hell"? Not very much I submit.
quote:If belief always followed desire, I'd be a Universalist. I think God wants Universalism to be true.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
would you feel upset to find Universalism was true? I'd be positively gleeful.
quote:I don't see how it is "much less unjust" - you merely assert that some chance is better than no chance. The shades of grey are neverending - and all of them influenced by factors over which only God, and not I, exercises any control. If one goes down this line, one eventually ends up with a form of Calvinism, even if it is not strict 5 points. Maybe it's my new "liberal" form.
Originally posted by Eliab:
1) That circumstance influences choice, but does not determine it <snip> and much less unjust than strict predestination
quote:as are many other ideas which could debate till kingsom come - original sin, the necessity of proclaiming the Gospel, the nature of truth.
2) The choice that God cares about is neither influenced, nor determined, by circumstance.
<snip>though the idea of a particular form of faith being necessary to salvation is challenged.
quote:Indeed.
3) Some form of second chance to make the important choice.
<snip> Not particularly Biblical.
quote:Well yes - although pretty much Biblically indefensible, I was saying that to me universalism is a good deal more intellectually defensible than Arminianism.
4)Universalism.
quote:There does seem to me to be a difference though, between claiming that God judges me on how I respond to circumstances (that are beyond my control) - this is a 'slim' chance of salvation, perhaps - and claming that all illusion of my responding of my own accord is in fact false, and that it won't make much difference anyway because God decided before I was born whether I'd be one of the elect.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:I don't see how it is "much less unjust" - you merely assert that some chance is better than no chance. The shades of grey are neverending - and all of them influenced by factors over which only God, and not I, exercises any control. If one goes down this line, one eventually ends up with a form of Calvinism, even if it is not strict 5 points. Maybe it's my new "liberal" form.
Originally posted by Eliab:
1) That circumstance influences choice, but does not determine it <snip> and much less unjust than strict predestination
quote:I think your view of free will is different from mine. Free will is not the ability to make absolutely any choice - you can't become a Christian if you never hear of Christ, for example. Free will is the ability to appreciate a range of options when you have to make a decision, and making a choice of one of them. Those options may be limited by circumstance, and experience may colour your decision; that doesn't affect free will.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And anyway - I think "free will" without taking into account the many complex factors that effect all of our decision making is a fiction. I've said that already. But it does suggest to me that God isn't as fussed about free will as Arminians make out - or he'd make sure free will could actually be exercised in the same way by everyone.
quote:So in your view, free will need not actually be free (as in unencumbered) but it is exercising any choice over anything, even if that choice is basically engineered by a higher power who knew what you would do before you did it, and created the circumstances in which you would do it?
Originally posted by leonato:
Those options may be limited by circumstance, and experience may colour your decision; that doesn't affect free will.
quote:I'm not sure what you are asking here. The whole point of evangelical Calvinism IS to say that our works are of no value, and that the good works that we do are "prepared in advance for us to do". That doesn't make them any less "good" but they are not a means to an end in proving that we are good.
What is the Calvinist view of this parable? If the Samaritan was only good because made him so: he was predestined to that good action, then of what value are faith and charity, if they are merely predestined into us by God?
quote:What I mean is this:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't see how it is "much less unjust" - you merely assert that some chance is better than no chance.
quote:Can I ask you a question, Leprechaun?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:I'm not sure what you are asking here. The whole point of evangelical Calvinism IS to say that our works are of no value, and that the good works that we do are "prepared in advance for us to do". That doesn't make them any less "good" but they are not a means to an end in proving that we are good.
What is the Calvinist view of this parable? If the Samaritan was only good because made him so: he was predestined to that good action, then of what value are faith and charity, if they are merely predestined into us by God?
quote:Yes, God 'bends' our will so that our will (most willingly) conforms to God's will. He makes us willing. The Reformed Confessions teach that:
I think I now understand your points about the involvement of the will in salvation - when we are saved our wills respond to God by his grace, not by our choice. Our wills are not free to accept God without his call, nor are they free to refuse Him if he calls us. Please correct me if I misinterpret you.
quote:Any gospel that conditions salvation on the 'free will' of man is not the Truth and therefore the lie. The gospel is salvation conditioned only on the life and blood of Jesus Christ. Any 'gospel' that credits man with part of the glory is stealing God's glory and promoting the lie of human sovereignty. The reformers were not shy to say with Paul in Galatians 1:8 that "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." The greatest ecumenical (in the good sense of the word) assembly of the Reformation charged arminians with bringing "again out of hell the Pelagian error." Pelagianism in all it's forms is a damnable heresy.
I then understand you to be saying that any theology which does not agree to this, and grants to man the free will to refuse the call of God is not a Christian theology at all but rather a damnable heresy in which no man can be saved.
quote:Unless they repent of the false gospels taught within their respective churches, they will surely perish. I am saying this as one who was raised in the Roman Church and who spent 12 years in Catholic education. If God had not granted me repentance from that false gospel, I would have perished.
Thus no Arminian protestant (or Catholic, or Orthodox, or any derivative thereof) is really a Christian and they are all (unless God has predestined them to repentance) lost.
quote:I'm aware I'm not Lep, but I generally agree with him and I'll have a go at answering, if I may.
Originally posted by xSx:
Can I ask you a question, Leprechaun?
If all my good works are 'prepared in advance for me to do', is there any real sense in which I should try to be good/do the right thing? Obviously, I am not suggesting here that I should try to earn salvation, but it seems to me that a belief in the predestination of some to salvation removes any motivation for morality.
Why should I do any good things, if God has already decided I am irredeemably corrupt and wicked? At present, I seek to follow God's will, because he is good and loved me enough to send his son to die for me. If he has already decided I am not saved, Jesus did not die for me, and there is no real motivation for me to please God.
Why should I do any good things, if God has decided I'm saved whatever I do?
quote:I suppose I am assuming an identity between God and his Word. If this is true I think it solves the problems you raise. Essential to being who he is will be keeping his own Word. His Word will be true to him, and he will be true to his Word.
originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I don't see this. If God's glory is unsurpassable, how can He seek glory by any other means than simply being Who He is?
[me:] I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory—expressed when he is seen as being true to his own revealed word— rather than (our versions of) what justice and mercy must look like.
I'm not sure what you mean by "seen as being true to his own revealed word" either. Surely His own revealed word should be true to Him, not the other way round?
quote:Prove this to me in scripture.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
Any gospel that conditions salvation on the 'free will' of man is not the Truth and therefore the lie. [...] Unless they repent of the false gospels taught within their respective churches, they will surely perish.
quote:The prime source of knowledge of God's Word is the Word made flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, scripture is a prime source of knowledge about him, but so is the Church. We encounter the risen Lord in worship, in the liturgy of the Word and the Eucharist.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am assuming in this that the only source of knowledge of God?s Word is scripture. But then I would, wouldn?t I?
quote:Well, he's scathing about their errors, just as he is about the errors of Peter and Barnabas. And he condemns anyone who "preaches" a different gospel. The body of the church, many of whom believed this error are referred to variously as "the churches of Galatia", "O foolish Galatians!" and "brethren".
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I could quote the entire book of Galatians for starters. Did Paul treat the Judaizers (who incidently believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ) as brothers?
quote:They thought being a Christian meant keeping the Jewish law (of which the test observance was circumcision). Paul points out that they can either try to please God through perfect law keeping (impossible) or accept His grace by faith.
What was their principle error?
quote:How do you have an identity between God and the Bible? As I understand it, the Word of John 1 refers to something in Jewish Wisdom literature, about which I know little.
I suppose I am assuming an identity between God and his Word. If this is true I think it solves the problems you raise. Essential to being who he is will be keeping his own Word. His Word will be true to him, and he will be true to his Word.
quote:Wot Carys said.
I am assuming in this that the only source of knowledge of God’s Word is scripture. But then I would, wouldn’t I?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Yes, he is scathing because it is a "different gospel" and there is only one gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16).
Well, he's scathing about their errors, just as he is about the errors of Peter and Barnabas. And he condemns anyone who "preaches" a different gospel.
quote:Paul here is labouring with the Galatians and imploring them to put away this false gospel and speaking to them organically. Yet he is extremely clear that those who will be led away with this "other gospel" are "accursed" (Gal 1:8) and "false brethren" (Gal 2:4). If someone who is a member of the church (like Peter) persisted in their damnable error (be it denying the Lord or conditioning salvation on works) than such a person (after being confronted: Matt 18:15-17) should be "cut off" (Gal 5:12) and excommunicated by the church. This is exactly what the Reformed Synod of Dordrecht did with the Arminians. They were confronted with their error (in love) and disciplined accordingly when they persisted in their heresy.
The body of the church, many of whom believed this error are referred to variously as "the churches of Galatia", "O foolish Galatians!" and "brethren".
quote:Those brethren who persisted in their error were not Paul's brothers. He makes this very clear over and over again. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Gal 5:2). Paul is not merely speaking about those who were already circumcized... but those who were trusting that their circumcision (works) would aid in their salvation. There can be no doubt that "whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal 5:4).
So, on balance, a qualified yes. Paul may have made an exception for the teachers of a false gospel (assuming 'accursed' to mean 'damned', which it may not) but broadly, the erring Galatians who thought they really had better get circumcised and avoid pork were Paul's brethren.
quote:"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal 2:4). Paul is speaking of the Judaizers in clear terms. The Judaizers were aliens to the gospel and came as a spy from a foreign land would come with the intent to enslave the church and bring it into ruin.
And I note that St Peter was condemned for avoiding the uncircumcised brothers, not (and this is absolutely crucial) for not avoiding the Judaizers.
quote:Anything that a man does is a work of that man. The sin of the Judaizers is the same sin (in principle) of requiring water baptism to be saved or that I say "boo boo ba" three times in my head in honor of the Trinity in order to be saved. Salvation cannot be conditioned on a work of man. Our repentance and belief is a gift... but not our gift to God, but God's gift to us. It also is a work... of God.
The whole point of the letter seems to me to be predicated on the fact that this was a real (ie, free) choice for the Galatians, but that aside, it has no bearing at all on the point in issue between us, because belief in free will is not a 'work of the law'.
quote:What we can quite clearly see in Galatians is that the concept of a conditional gospel is "another gospel." When we condition salvation on man, we put man on the throne and rob God of His glory in salvation. Heidelberg Catechism 30 speaks of such people:
We can't tell from the letter whether the Galatians believed in free will or not.
quote:Scripture is very clear on the point.
What I've asked you to show me, and which I believe does not exist, is scriptural support for the proposition that no one who believes in free will can be saved.
quote:No. I'm not arguing that God and Scripture are to be identified — at least, not without several qualifying intermediary steps that remove the possibility of absurd misinterpretations of that statement.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Gordon,
quote:How do you have an identity between God and the Bible? As I understand it, the Word of John 1 refers to something in Jewish Wisdom literature, about which I know little.
I suppose I am assuming an identity between God and his Word. If this is true I think it solves the problems you raise. Essential to being who he is will be keeping his own Word. His Word will be true to him, and he will be true to his Word.
quote:As for the connection between the Word of God incarnate, the Word of God spoken and the word of God enscripturated; the identification is not absolute. But the connection is very tight indeed, and the puzzle created for the reader by John's use of "logos" (the word) in John 1 (and the associated "logos/logoi" vocabulary of the entire gospel) is surely intentional on John's part. The Word/word perfectly expresses the being of God: there is no part of this expression which is inadequate, misleading, or surplus to requirements. The expression of the Father's will in his word perfectly and exhaustively expresses his inexhaustible and inexpressible glory, life, love, grace, truth, justice and mercy.
The Word as Scripture is a separate matter. Unless you're going to make Scripture into the fourth Person of the Trinity, the Scriptures (even from a con-evo position) must be caused by and subordinate to the Godhead. Hence, the Bible must reflect the nature of God, not the other way round, and you still have to explain the conflict within His nature.
quote:This is a red herring. I'm not talking about church discipline, but salvation. I'll answer this on another thread if you think it important and care to kick it off.
londonderry:
...If someone who is a member of the church (like Peter) persisted in their damnable error (be it denying the Lord or conditioning salvation on works) than such a person (after being confronted: Matt 18:15-17) should be "cut off" (Gal 5:12) and excommunicated by the church.
quote:And yet he calls them brethren <pause for skim read of the epistle> at least nine times. There are two other passages in which he expands on their status as sons of God (thus implicitly brothers of all other sons of God), and he also addresses them as ‘my little children' (4.19) and refers to ‘the household of faith' (6.10). Every one of those affectionate references is to the whole church (explicitly so, in 3.26). I'm prepared to allow you an implicit exception in the case of preachers (not believers) of the legalist error, but no more.
Those brethren who persisted in their error were not Paul's brothers. He makes this very clear over and over again.
quote:No he isn't. Read the verse in context. The false brethren aren't the ones troubling the Galatians, in fact they aren't in Galatia at all.
"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal 2:4). Paul is speaking of the Judaizers in clear terms.
quote:Nice. The power of out-of context quotation has never been so clearly demonstrated. Here's what it really means:
Our [...] belief [...] is a work of God. "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent" (John 6:29).
quote:That's what I've challenged you to show. Since the letter to the Galatians does not mention free will, or a belief in it, at all, it won't do.
quote:Scripture is very clear on the point.
Eliab:
What I've asked you to show me, and which I believe does not exist, is scriptural support for the proposition that no one who believes in free will can be saved.
quote:No. The reason the Judaizers were disciplined and “cut off” was because they were preaching “another gospel” (Gal 1:6) and were to be put out from the church unless God granted them repentance. The conditional “gospel” is a works gospel that cannot save, for exactly the reason Paul explained in Galatians. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal 2:16).
This is a red herring. I'm not talking about church discipline, but salvation. I'll answer this on another thread if you think it important and care to kick it off.
quote:Paul is speaking to the “churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2) organically and more specifically to those whom Christ gave himself for (1:4). He speaks to the Galatians as brethren in the context of the gospel that he preached to them and which they received (Gal 3:2). He is not suggesting that the Judaizers or those unrepentantly carried away with their error are brothers. Paul in fact makes it clear that those who make their works a basis for their salvation are “children of the bondwoman” (Gal 4:31) and not the spiritual children of Jerusalem (4:26). They glory in their flesh and not in Christ (Gal 6:13-14). Those who glory in themselves and not in God manifest themselves as bastards and not the true children of God. Arminianism (Free Will) is entirely about glorying in the work of man. It is all about who gets the glory in salvation… God or man. Does God receive the glory for initiating my salvation or does man?
And yet he calls them brethren <pause for skim read of the epistle> at least nine times.
quote:Yes context. Paul is writing to the Galatians churches that are being plagued with the very same heresy dealt with at the Jerusalem Council. Paul is bringing the point up in Galatians because it is the very same heresy and the very same infiltration that is infecting the church like a plague. Just as Sarah implored Abraham to “cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Gal 4:31), so too the Galatians were to cast out those who would seek to entangle the church with the “yoke of bondage” (Gal 5:1).
No he isn't. Read the verse in context. The false brethren aren't the ones troubling the Galatians, in fact they aren't in Galatia at all.
quote:You are clouding the issue. Paul addresses them as “brethren” as he is speaking to the church organically. Anyone preaching or believing “any other gospel… than that which we have preached unto you” was “accursed” (Gal 1:8). There were most clearly two groups in the Galatian churches… those in the spirit and those in the flesh (Gal 3:3). Those in the spirit were to “cut off” (Gal 5:12) those who trusted in the flesh, whether they were false preachers or false brethren.
And yet he calls them brethren...
quote:What is the context? The crowd is coming to Christ to ask “what shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” Jesus is reminding them of the work of faith which is a greater miracle than the feeding of the multitudes and it is a “work of God.” The command to “labour” and to “repent and believe” are the obligations of men to their creator… but the gift of faith is a work of God that is given graciously. It is only through this gift of faith that our works are acceptable in the sight of God.
Nice. The power of out-of context quotation has never been so clearly demonstrated. Here's what it really means:
quote:This is because you fail to understand the message of Galatians. It is not merely a warning to the Galatians and us today about the error of circumcision (as if this would have any relevance today), but that when one conditions salvation on an act of man, be it circumcision, baptism or free will, it is a gospel that cannot save as it is requiring the works of the law which can never save.
That's what I've challenged you to show. Since the letter to the Galatians does not mention free will, or a belief in it, at all, it won't do.
quote:When we condition salvation and oblige others (as a condition) to exercise their “free will” (as if the natural will is free at all) than we are in effect making our fulfillment of the law (instead of Christ) the means by which we are made righteous in God’s site. To condition salvation on any part of the law is to put a man under the entire yoke of it. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal 3:10).
Is it at all parallel to Judaising legalism? Well, firstly there is no reason to conclude (as Paul does in the case of circumcision) that accepting free will requires a man to obey the whole of the law, a principal part of his argument.
quote:Yes, Freedom in Jesus Christ. Only in Christ are we truly free and not as a result of our own works and labours. Conditioning salvation on our own works and labours is bondage to the unrighteous nature of those works. It stands in opposition to the freedom that we have in the finished work of Christ on the cross, because it shows that we are not resting in Christ and trusting in Him alone, but upon ourselves.
Indeed, Paul's real objection to ‘works of the law' is that they oppose the idea of Christian freedom.
quote:No. Free will denies what the Scriptures teach about the natural man, that he is spiritually dead and unable and unwilling to come to God of himself. To claim that my faith is my own gift to God is to make me a thief and a liar. I am stealing the credit for what only God can do and asserting the righteous nature of my will to make a righteous decision. It only indicates that such a person has not been humbled before God… or why else would they fight so hard to claim the credit for initiating salvation, rather than giving all the glory to God? Does God or man get the glory for initiating salvation? If God gets the glory than what is the purpose in insisting on an alleged “free will”?
To Paul, a man under law is in bondage, a slave and the son of a slave, compared to whom the Christian is a freeborn son and heir. By definition belief in free will does not have the effect of removing freedom.
quote:No. To suggest that I can initiate my own salvation, makes “my choice” the deciding factor in whether God can save me or not. It makes God a beggar who stands outside the heart of man, begging to be allowed to come in. God is not on his knees before man but sovereignly ruling on his throne over all things. A work is anything that a man does and by claiming that my baptism or supposed righteous (free) “will” is the condition of my salvation credits me with something that is unique (as opposed to my unbelieving neighbor down the street.) Arminianism is nothing more than a modification of Pelagianism.
Nor is there any sense in which belief in free will (in itself) involves the idea that salvation is earned or merited. I believe as strongly as you or St Paul that the gospel is grace, a free gift, undeserved and unconditional. I differ from you (not, I think, from the saint) in thinking it is an unconditional gift which we are free to refuse.
quote:I have already given you many verses to prove the point, but you are unwilling to see that everything a man does is a work. A work is something that we do… whether it’s walking down the street, thinking or believing. Galatians is clear that “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse” (Galatians 3:10). When God commands us to believe and we make “our” work of belief the condition of salvation, we are putting ourselves under the curse of the law. God cannot be our sovereign king when we reject his sovereignty.
And the supplemental: If you can't - if scripture is in fact silent on the point - aren't you closer than I am to the Galatians' error of adding an additional requirement to the gospel - in their case obedience to Jewish law, in your case, disbelief in free will?
quote:KJV: 'I would they were even cut off which trouble you.'
Those in the spirit were to "cut off" (Gal 5:12) those who trusted in the flesh, whether they were false preachers or false brethren.
quote:Can we agree that there is no scripture that EXPRESSLY deals with the heresy of belief in free will?
you fail to understand the message of Galatians. It is not merely a warning to the Galatians and us today about the error of circumcision (as if this would have any relevance today), but that when one conditions salvation on an act of man, be it circumcision, baptism or free will, it is a gospel that cannot save as it is requiring the works of the law which can never save.
quote:and:
Those who glory in themselves and not in God manifest themselves as bastards and not the true children of God. Arminianism (Free Will) is entirely about glorying in the work of man. It is all about who gets the glory in salvation… God or man. Does God receive the glory for initiating my salvation or does man?
quote:And in this you are wrong, not about theology, but about fact. I've believed in free will, and worshipped in churches that teach it, all my life, and never have I thought that the man initiates salvation, or gains the glory of it, or exercises the righteous nature of his will to make a righteous decision, or refused to give any of the glory of the gospel to God. I don't think, as a Christian, I am for that reason one whit better than any non-believer, I don't think I deserve any credit for believing, and I don't see my salvation as anything other than God's free gift. You may not see how I can believe in this, but the fact is, I do, and so do all other (Arminian-esque) Christians that I know. Arminianism is not (whether by intention, logical necessity or psychological reality) a denial of God's glory.
I [as the hypothetical Arminian] am stealing the credit for what only God can do and asserting the righteous nature of my will to make a righteous decision. It only indicates that such a person has not been humbled before God… or why else would they fight so hard to claim the credit for initiating salvation, rather than giving all the glory to God? Does God or man get the glory for initiating salvation?
quote:I don't insist on free will. Belief in free will is not part of the gospel. You don't believe it, and you are saved. I think free will is true, that belief in it underpins all moral reasoning, that disbelief in it challenges God's justice (and therefore his goodness and glory) and that it is my daily psychological experience, but I don't insist that you have to agree with me to be a Christian.
If God gets the glory than what is the purpose in insisting on an alleged "free will"?
quote:Free will doesn't deny the teaching that 'the natural man, that he is spiritually dead and unable and unwilling to come to God of himself' because I accept that teaching. Three examples:
Free will denies what the Scriptures teach about the natural man, that he is spiritually dead and unable and unwilling to come to God of himself.
quote:What a sublime and beautiful image! God is on his knees before man.
It makes God a beggar who stands outside the heart of man, begging to be allowed to come in. God is not on his knees before man but sovereignly ruling on his throne over all things.
quote:1) How can they be "necessary" if one is Saved regardless?
Originally posted by Custard.:
We should seek to do good for exactly the reasons you outline, because of what God has done for us. Good works are a necessary outworking and sign of God's regenerating grace in the hearts of those who have been predestined to be saved.
quote:Clarication: I don't dispute that Jesus is the Logos. However, I understand the word logos to refer to two separate concepts - I'm not sure that you can necessarily intertwine the two as closely as you are doing. Admittedly this is an area where my knowledge is very shaky.
I am, as you picked up, alluding to John 1 and yes, probably Proverbs 8. But the Jewish wisdom literature background can't I think alter the unqualified identification that the passage itself makes between Jesus and the Word.
quote:I would have thought that the expression is essentially subordinate to the thing being expressed. Unless I'm missing something.
Therefore for God to be bound by what his word says is in reality no binding or subordination but simply his expression of his divine freedom to pursue his own glory— that is to say, he gains glory for himself by being true to his free and perfect self-expression.
quote:Indeed. It is a beautiful image. But can't you see that it's beauty dervies from the fact that God isn't under compulsion to kneel at our feet, driven to it as a last desperate and mostly ineffective measure, but chose this way of rescuing his people?
Originally posted by Eliab:
What a sublime and beautiful image! God is on his knees before man.
God on his knees:
God on his knees as he washes his disciples' feet from all uncleanness.
God on his knees at prayer in the garden, awaiting his arrest.
God on his knees as he stumbles under the weight of the cross.
God on his knees as he woos the Church, his holy bride.
Can't you see that the Kneeling God has more majesty than the Master of Puppets?
quote:That's fine, I've been enjoying it a great deal and all the best for your exams!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Gordon,
Since the exam period is coming up for me, I think that after this post I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion. Thanks very much for your responses though.
quote:Functionally subordinate but not ontologically, I think. In the same way as the Son is not ontologically subordinate to the Father. Or is the shine subordinate to the sun from which it issues, to borrow from Athanasius?
I would have thought that the expression is essentially subordinate to the thing being expressed. Unless I'm missing something.
quote:A pity the Orthodox didn't have much time for Augustine. And that Aquinas chappie has a lot to answer for!
You are also assuming that the Bible unequivocally teaches Calvinism. I would say that it is ambiguous on the matter. The alternative is surely to say that the entire Catholic and Orthodox churches, alongside a good proportion of Protestants, are either intellectually dishonest or unable to read for comprehension.
quote:Sorry to take so long to get back to this.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Just to be another non-Lep adding to the Lep reply: also we seek to do good because we call Jesus "Lord". If we don't seek to do good, then we don't really believe he is Lord. If he isn't our Lord, he hasn't died for us. If he hasn't died for us, we're not saved.
quote:"necessary" in the logical sense i.e. that it is part of the character of saving faith to produce good works.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:1) How can they be "necessary" if one is Saved regardless?
Originally posted by Custard.:
We should seek to do good for exactly the reasons you outline, because of what God has done for us. Good works are a necessary outworking and sign of God's regenerating grace in the hearts of those who have been predestined to be saved.
quote:We cannot know that we aren't saved - our response should be to repent and throw ourselves on God's mercy (which would therefore demonstrate the Spirit working in our heart).
2) If I have no desire in my heart to do such things, should I still do them based on my having read the Bible, or should I accept that I'm not (and never going to be) Saved and just live how I want?
quote:If someone does not have the Holy Spirit, there are things that might motivate them to appear to do good.
3) Basically, if I'm NOT Saved, why should I do good?
quote:Can I answer, even though I'm not a Calvinist?
Originally posted by xSx:
I don't see why I can't seek to good, believing Jesus is Lord and then find out 'oops, you're not one of the Elect'. Then what was the point in me being good, denying myself for my whole life?
quote:That's what you think...
I'm officially agnostic on free will.
quote:The traditional translation of the text is entirely fitting and proper. Paul writes in Gal 5:9 that ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.’ It is time to cut out the leaven that is troubling you, so that you are not led astray from the Truth. With regards to your suggestion that this is limited solely to false preachers. Where does the text say this? The idea that Paul would allow the church to tolerate heretical members, but not heretical preachers runs contrary to his whole message. If what is being preached by the Judaizers (Gal 1:8-9) is “another gospel” than their followers are guilty of believing and propagating “another gospel” and not the Truth. They need to be confronted in love and told to repent. If after labouring with them, they do not repent; the church needs to exercise the third mark of the true church (discipline.) They need to be “cut off” from the fellowship and communion of the church so that they realize the serious nature of their heresy. What good would Paul’s instructions be if he was going to allow the Judaizers to be full members of church in spite of the fact that they were in the “yoke of bondage” (Gal 5:1)?
The RSV has 'mutilate themselves', the NIV 'emasculate' themselves… I'm not sure that this text supports all you want it to say, and is in any case limited to false preachers.
quote:No. Because Galatians is speaking about works gospels and it is just as relevant as us talking about “vegtables” but than saying that this has nothing to do with broccoli, carrots or peas. Galatians has little relevancy or purpose today if it is merely speaking about the sin of requiring circumcision. Where does such error even exist in the world today?
Can we agree that there is no scripture that EXPRESSLY deals with the heresy of belief in free will?
quote:Believing that salvation is entirely of God’s grace is not the cause or condition of my regeneration, but the fruit that is manifest by those who have been born again. I do not believe in order to be born again, but I believe because I have been born again. How could a dead man think or stand up unless he has first been granted life?
I can just as easily read into the same text a condemnation of your exclusivist gospel on the basis that it is adding a requirement of salvation.
quote:I grant that no Scripture should be taken in a vacuum, but that the message of Galatians with it’s dire warning to those holding a conditional gospel is echoed in many, many other places in Scripture.
We aren't getting our theology from that text.
quote:Does a Roman Catholic walk around and say “I’m an Idolater”? No… that would be silly to suggest. Of course an Arminian does not walk around saying or even thinking in his head “I’m going to glory in my flesh and not in Christ.” But when he believes that salvation hinges on his work of faith than that is in effect what he is doing… whether he will admit that or not.
The reason I believe your interpretation is flawed is that you have set out a caricature of 'Arminian' belief which I simply do not recognise as being relevant to anyone I know.
quote:Again, I would suggest that Arminians would be the first to say that “salvation is all of God’s grace”… but what they give with one hand, they take with the other. Inevitably they will condition that sentence with the word “but”…. “but YOU have to believe” or “but YOU have to accept Jesus into your heart”. By doing so they are claiming that man can do something righteous. If their “belief” is not righteous than of necessity it must be unrighteous and offensive to God. If the arminian is not concerned about personal credit than why do they not attribute God as the sole giver of every good gift… including their faith and belief… and the choice to exercise that faith and belief? Why do they fight so hard for an act of “their” will as opposed to giving God due credit? You suggest that arminians do not try to take away God’s glory, but who do they give glory to with reference to the specific act of “choice”? Is it God’s choice or my choice? If it’s mine than why should God (outside of a false piety) be given the glory for something that I created of myself? Scripture teaches that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) and there can only be one author who is credited.
And in this you are wrong, not about theology, but about fact. I've believed in free will, and worshipped in churches that teach it, all my life…
quote:Apologies, I wasn’t very clear. I understand that you are not insisting that I must be an arminian to be saved. But you are fighting tenaciously that man be given the credit for something that is good (again… faith must be good or else it would be repugnant sin to God). Does it not strike you as strange why you are fighting so hard for your own glory (regarding this one specific act), instead of God’s glory. Pink once pointed out in his volume of total depravity that there is nothing that can be said that is too harsh, regarding the wicked nature of the natural man. Why than are we arguing over “what man can do” when Scripture is clear that man can do nothing (Romans 3:11)?
I don't insist on free will...
quote:It most certainly does. By suggesting that a mere creature is able to frustrate and defeat the will of the creator, you are teaching that man is not entirely dead at all. Man still has life within himself to analyze his situation and decide whether or not to “accept” God’s grace. How could a man make such a determination and decision if he was entirely captive to sin? With regards to your examples… your spin on them amounts to this. God gives us a cheque, but we have to decide whether or not to cash it. Again, this makes man the judge and arbitrator of whether or not he is going to become saved. This judgment that ultimately leads to his salvation and not his neighbors… leaves room for boasting. Why am I saved and not my neighbor? If God died for us both, desired our salvation equally and poured out his grace in equal measure, than what exactly led to my being saved, while my neighbor remains in the bonds of iniquity? Ultimately it comes down to “my” decision and therein lies my conditional salvation of works.
Free will doesn't deny the teaching that 'the natural man, that he is spiritually dead and unable and unwilling to come to God of himself…
quote:Jesus was on his knees washing the disciples feet as the suffering servant and it was only on the judicial basis of what He was going to do on the cross that He showed compassion and mercy to those whom He chose. In other words the basis of God’s mercy is Himself and can only be Himself. Arminianism presents God as a beggar to man on the basis of that man’s individual worth and righteous ability to decide whom to follow. Jesus was on his knees to perform an act of kindness for some, but it was an act of humility and not one of subjection. Free will makes God captive to man’s decision and makes man his very own “little god”…. or as you may prefer to say “his very own little puppet master of himself.” Man was brought into existence without his consent… man was born in a specific place without his consent… man was born in a specific time and era without his consent. The lesson to be learned in this is that (in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism) we are not our own, but belong unto our our faithful savior. The chief end of man is not his own pleasure but the glory of God. Arminianism presents a very small and limited god that is subject to man’s will. Such worship of the human will can be nothing less than idolatry as it substitutes God’s efficacious grace and desire with “what I decide to do.” "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Gal 5:2).
What a sublime and beautiful image! God is on his knees before man.
quote:With all my heart, yes. What makes God’s humility such an unanswerable challenge to human pride is that it is absolutely unnecessary. He can achieve anything by mere power, but chooses to conquer through love.
Indeed. It is a beautiful image. But can't you see that it's beauty dervies from the fact that God isn't under compulsion to kneel at our feet, driven to it as a last desperate and mostly ineffective measure, but chose this way of rescuing his people?
quote:I think I agree – at least, I would deny any identification between ‘free’ and ‘random’. God’s actions are free but not random. A lunatic’s actions are random but not free.
I've another question, this time for my fellow believers in free will. It seems to me that the free will approach in Christian thought is not that our decisions are at root random events …
quote:I’m not sure if it is the only way, but I think it is the way he has chosen with us. If God wants creatures to freely choose to love him, it is unavoidable that there is a risk that they will not. Of course, I hope that his love, patience and self-giving will in the end result in the complete triumph of God and that even the most stubborn and self-willed soul in hell will bow the knee and call him Lord in love and repentance. I do not say that this will happen – but I hope for it.
… If this is the case then is it not true that […] the only way God can make blessed creatures is to make a universe of some sort in which some creatures will be lost?
quote:This is how I understand ‘they … which trouble you’. You don’t (by this text) get cut off for believing in circumcision, but for unsettling your brother by telling him to be circumcised. I don’t say Paul would tolerate error in any church member, just that this particular verse is not authority for saying that anyone holding the error is damned.
With regards to your suggestion that this is limited solely to false preachers. Where does the text say this?
quote:It’s more that Galatians is talking about carrots (=circumcision) - you apply the teaching to all salad vegetables (=conditions) and I apply it to all root vegetables (=additions) - you think courgettes (=Arminianism) are included, and I don’t, because I don’t think they are meant, and I don’t put courgettes in salads (=think Arminianism is ‘conditional’ in your sense) anyway.
Because Galatians is speaking about works gospels and it is just as relevant as us talking about “vegtables” but than saying that this has nothing to do with broccoli, carrots or peas.
quote:No chance at all. But a live man can choose to stay down. We’re fully agreed that no one has free will to save themselves, we differ only on whether anyone has free will to refuse to be saved.
How could a dead man think or stand up unless he has first been granted life?
quote:You will not, I’m sure, be surprised to learn that while I am not a Catholic, and probably share many of your misgivings about Catholicism, I think that Catholics can and will be saved. The question of Catholic error is a can of worms I’m going to open, except to say that a Catholic is a good witness of what it is Catholics actually do and believe. You can call what they do ‘idolatry’ if you like, but I think you have to inform that judgment with Catholic testimony on their own beliefs.
Does a Roman Catholic walk around and say “I’m an Idolater”?
quote:I can only give my own testimony that it is not so. I do believe salvation is entirely a work of God. I have never believed that it was anything else.
Of course an Arminian does not walk around saying or even thinking in his head “I’m going to glory in my flesh and not in Christ.” But when he believes that salvation hinges on his work of faith than that is in effect what he is doing… Again, I would suggest that Arminians would be the first to say that “salvation is all of God’s grace”… but what they give with one hand, they take with the other.
quote:For myself, not to glorify any man, but to glorify God. You see, I really do believe that it reflects better on God that the lost were given a chance to accept him, than that they were created for eternal punishment. If it was simply a matter of giving God credit, I would surrender immediately, but it isn’t. I believe in free will as a corollary of my first, fundamental, principle that God is good.
If the arminian is not concerned about personal credit than why do they not attribute God as the sole giver of every good gift… including their faith and belief… and the choice to exercise that faith and belief? Why do they fight so hard for an act of “their” will as opposed to giving God due credit?
quote:Yes. As someone who often forgets to cash cheques, that’ll do very well as an illustration of what I mean. The question is, is the cheque for wages, or is it a gift? I say it’s a gift. If I forget to cash it, my forgetfulness does not diminish the giver’s generosity. If I remember to cash it, I can claim none of that generosity as my own. The glory is God’s all the way.
With regards to your examples… your spin on them amounts to this. God gives us a cheque, but we have to decide whether or not to cash it.
quote:Maybe, but that’s a perversion of what I believe. I could say that God’s election gives you reason to boast because you must have been special – which would be a perversion of what you believe. Either of us could boast, but we would both have to reject the truth to do it.
Again, this makes man the judge and arbitrator of whether or not he is going to become saved. This judgment that ultimately leads to his salvation and not his neighbors… leaves room for boasting.
quote:A question – if God, in the exercise of his sovereign will, wanted to give you a free choice to accept him or not, who would stop him?
Arminianism presents a very small and limited god that is subject to man’s will.
quote:I think there's a problem with this, though, and I think I'm going to end up supporting Calvinism in a limited fashion here. I'll open by agreeing with everything you wrote.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I’m not sure if it is the only way, but I think it is the way he has chosen with us. If God wants creatures to freely choose to love him, it is unavoidable that there is a risk that they will not. Of course, I hope that his love, patience and self-giving will in the end result in the complete triumph of God and that even the most stubborn and self-willed soul in hell will bow the knee and call him Lord in love and repentance. I do not say that this will happen – but I hope for it.
quote:I am not suggesting that anyone who believes in circumcision is not saved, but that anyone who believes it is a condition for salvation is not saved. I'm sure there are Christians who practise circumcision for medical/cultural reasons. There is no difference (with reference to the heretical error) between a preacher who is a Judaizer (except his responsibility is greater) and a layperson who is a Judaizer. They both believe the very same conditional gospel and Paul's admonition would apply to them both.
You don’t (by this text) get cut off for believing in circumcision, but for unsettling your brother by telling him to be circumcised.
quote:I hope that you do not, yet Arminians answer the question "What must I DO to be born again" with their own effort of faith. We do not believe in order to be born again (as if we could differentiate ourself before God), but because God in His sovereign mercy has already made us born again. Again, if Colossians is merely talking about conditional circumcision, the book has very little relevance for us in the 21st century. Such an interpretation dulls the blade of God's word so that it's essentially meaningless for us today.
I don’t put courgettes in salads (=think Arminianism is ‘conditional’ in your sense) anyway.
quote:Is the will of the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth ever frustrated by puny man? God created ten thousand universes with a word and yet man is going to stop God's desire right in it's tracks? Either God is sovereign over everything or man stands on an equal footing with God in this respect.
we differ only on whether anyone has free will to refuse to be saved.
quote:The gospel of Rome is essential arminian, so arminians generally cannot see the damnable nature of the Roman Catholic gospel.
I think that Catholics can and will be saved.
quote:It's not merely me that says that Scripture condemns Roman Catholicism as idolatry. So do all the Reformed Creeds.
You can call what they do ‘idolatry’ if you like, but I think you have to inform that judgment with Catholic testimony on their own beliefs
quote:If one believes that God is unable to save them, without their consent than they are in fact worshipping their own will and also guilty of idolatry.
I can only give my own testimony that it is not so. I do believe salvation is entirely a work of God.
quote:Man in Adam made his choice in Eden. While Adam was Righteous and Holy... we are not. By nature we are the children of our father the devil and in bondage to sin. You are letting your own presuppositions determine who God must be. The Scriptures reveal God and He is the Divine Potter.
I believe in free will as a corollary of my first, fundamental, principle that God is good.
quote:A cheque is not actually anything other than a worthless piece of paper with a PROMISE of payment. Christ not only makes the elect the heirs of the promise (and all things with Him) but bestows a new will which conforms to the will of God and will not refuse God's gift. What is the purpose in God desiring to bestow something good on someone (salvation) when he does not bestow the means (conforming our will) of the bestowal. What exactly makes me different from a reprobate somewhere else in the world who will never desire salvation? Scripturally, nothing but the grace of God.... but according to Arminianism... my wise choice.
The question is, is the cheque for wages, or is it a gift? I say it’s a gift. If I forget to cash it, my forgetfulness does not diminish the giver’s generosity. If I remember to cash it, I can claim none of that generosity as my own. The glory is God’s all the way.
quote:You could say anything, but it doesn't mean there is truth in your words. What you said would only be true if the Reformed Faith taught in it's confessions that we were chosen because "we were special". The Confessions teach total depravity and the grace of God in salvation. There is nothing to boast about except God's grace in Jesus Christ. Arminianism on the other hand denies the total depravity of man, because he believes there is something good in the natural man. Is that not an accurate description of the difference?
I could say that God’s election gives you reason to boast because you must have been special...
quote:The idea that God wills to change Himself makes God's changeable. Scripture teaches that God does not change.
A question – if God, in the exercise of his sovereign will, wanted to give you a free choice to accept him or not, who would stop him?
quote:No. Because Scripture teaches that God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). God is All Powerful in the proper sense that He can do everything that His righteous will desires to do. God does not will to change or give others sovereignty over his plans and desires. That would be surrendering something of who God is and remove God from His throne and control over all things. How can we say God is in control when not all things are really in His control?
Obviously, no one can stop God doing this. He can do it even if (especially if) he is all powerful.
quote:Does all of mankind deserve eternal damnation in hell for original sin or not? Why is God obliged to give anyone "any opportunity for salvation"? Is God in some way indebted to the natural sons of Adam who joined Satan in His rebellion? The denial of total depravity leads to such a conclusion because the goodness of man must lead to God's obligation to man. Jesus said that "Ye must be born again" and this happens through the Word of God. Do all have an opportunity to hear the Word of God or are you going to suggest that those without the Word will all be saved (or judged on the basis of their good works?... as if man could merit anything with God through works.)
I think he does do this, because I think that a God who did not give the lost any opportunity for salvation would be less good than a God who did, and I will not at any price believe that God is less than perfectly good.
quote:No. I believe you are in serious error. Arminianism is not a petty theological difference or else it would merely be a show of pride and arrogance. There can only be one true gospel that saves and Scripture teaches that "as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse" (Gal 3:10). The arminian gospel teaches that man has to just believe and obey one command of God to be saved: "Believe". Scripture teaches that man cannot obey even this small command because he is in bondage to sin (Rom 3:11).
There must be a way in which we are, fundamentally, both right. God is both good and true.
quote:God's promise includes the unilateral nature of the covenant where God walks alone (Abraham sleeping) in making an obligation based solely on Himself (Genesis 15:12-21). When we deny that man is sleeping and assert that man is walking with God in the midst of the carcases, we are obliging our own destruction when we disobey God (which we do everyday). Man cannot gain God's favor by obeying the least of God's commandments as man is a debtor to the whole law of God... and when man makes his keeping of the law the judicial basis for his own salvation, he is condemning himself to destruction. I have no desire to consign anyone to hell (as if that was my place at all.) But Scripture condemns arminianism as I have pointed out as it condemns all conditional gospels... where man "must do this or that". Salvation is either free or a partial obligation on the part of God.
Now since we believe that, since we both believe God’s promises, since we both love Jesus and accept (willingly or not) his gift of salvation, since we both declare that it is by his grace, and no work of ours, that we were saved, since we could, I am sure, both attest to the presence of God’s Holy Spirit in our lives - aren’t we both Christians?
), but I'll be back after a few days.
quote:No, they don't. you seem to be attacking a straw man version of Arminianism. It does not say that salvation is attained by our choice: salvation remains the free gift of grace. Arminianism says that it may be possible to refuse that grace. If God forces us to conform to his will and to accept grace then of what worth is that grace?
Originally posted by londonderrry:
... yet Arminians answer the question "What must I DO to be born again" with their own effort of faith.
quote:I take this means ‘free will’ in a broader sense - all our decisions, not just the acceptance of God's grace?
Originally posted by Custard:
I'm officially agnostic on free will.
But how do people who believe in it explain how it works? What part of the brain doesn't follow the (deterministic / probablistic) laws of physics? Is there a pineal gland?
quote:This is the central question, and my answer is ‘yes’. I think that I (and any other person) can frustrate the eternal purpose of God by refusing salvation. I don’t think this implies any lack of power for God (it is he who allows me the choice) nor that it gives me grounds for saying I earn salvation (I don’t, it is a gift) or that God is changeable (he isn’t).
Originally posted by Londonderry:
Is the will of the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth ever frustrated by puny man? God created ten thousand universes with a word and yet man is going to stop God's desire right in it's tracks? Either God is sovereign over everything or man stands on an equal footing with God in this respect. […] "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." Job 23:13
quote:This statement seems to me to be in the same class as ‘Calvinists believe that God is evil’ or ‘Atheists do not believe in moral values’. It may be arguable that these are the logical ends of Arminianism, Calvinism and atheism, but as a matter of fact all are untrue – adherents of these faith positions do not generally draw those conclusions, however compelling they may seem to an outsider. I think Calvinists believe things about God that (if true) make him evil, but I fully accept that you do not consciously worship an evil God. You manage to persuade yourself that he is good. I don’t know how you can possibly do that, but I accept you do it in good faith. Please return the courtesy by accepting that even if you can’t see how I manage it, I believe that salvation can be refused without thereby worshipping or glorying in my own will.
If one believes that God is unable to save them, without their consent than they are in fact worshipping their own will and also guilty of idolatry.
quote:That was my point. I know very well that orthodox Calvinists (the oxymoron is intended) do not think this. It would be a false caricature of Calvinism. Similarly, the ‘Arminian’ position that boasts of man’s contribution to salvation is a caricature. I don’t believe in it, nor does anyone I know.
quote:You could say anything, but it doesn't mean there is truth in your words. What you said would only be true if the Reformed Faith taught in it's confessions that we were chosen because "we were special". The Confessions teach total depravity and the grace of God in salvation.
Eliab:
I could say that God’s election gives you reason to boast because you must have been special...
quote:This is unquestionably your strongest point, and I confess at once that this is for me one of the hardest passages in scripture. Clearly it is true, a potter has exactly that power, and so, by analogy, does God. But to me it is unsatisfying – the rest of the Bible and my own experience compel me to believe that God is better than that and thinks more of man (however little he deserves it) than as some sort of sentient pisspot.
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Romans 9:18-21
quote:That is a very good question. But as I don’t actually think I’m called to have an opinion on what ‘all of mankind’ deserves and I don’t know what exactly you mean by original sin, I can’t give you a good answer. I do think that my inherent sinful nature (‘original sin’?) makes me absolutely and eternally unfit for heaven (unless God sanctifies me) and that my actual and deliberate sins are deserving of punishment and rejection by God (unless he forgives me). The same applies to any other person in my position. So I suppose the answer to your question is a qualified ‘yes’.
Does all of mankind deserve eternal damnation in hell for original sin or not?
quote:Amen. The consequences of self-enclosing ideologies are very unfortunate, though the sincerity of their adherents is unquestionable.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Londonderry,
(snip)
I understand that you think the Arminian view is wrong, and I’m not really concerned to prove it right in fact – now we see through a glass darkly – Calvinism may be as close to God as you are currently able to approach, Arminianism may be that for me, and the full knowledge of the Lord that awaits us will likely bring us both to deep regret for our mistakes, and then to infinite joy. What worries me is that you see my error (and that of most of the visible Church) as damnable, and thereby deny God’s love to the overwhelming majority of those whom God himself has accepted and saved. You thereby cut yourself from a vast amount of Christian truth and brotherhood which may well be of tremendous value to you. I can’t help thinking that this is very unfortunate.
quote:Yes, quite often. Every time we sin.
Originally posted by londonderrry:
Is the will of the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth ever frustrated by puny man?
quote:False dichotomy. Man can be sovereign over a little bit while God is sovereign over a lot. There is no need to suppose, nor any good reason I can see to suppose, that God's voluntarily limiting Her own sovereignty must imply that Man is equal.
Either God is sovereign over everything or man stands on an equal footing with God in this respect.
quote:And they are binding on Roman Catholics why? They are the writings of schismatics from schismatics (from my POV) and have no more weight to me than the Quran or the Book of Mormon.
It's not merely me that says that Scripture condemns Roman Catholicism as idolatry. So do all the Reformed Creeds.
quote:I don't see the connection. Can you explain how you get from the one to the other? There seems to be a great number of missing logical links here.
If one believes that God is unable to save them, without their consent than they are in fact worshipping their own will and also guilty of idolatry.
quote:You mean Adam defied God's will? You just said nobody did. Adam made no decision at all if your position is correct. God made him do it, because God is sovereign.
Man in Adam made his choice in Eden.
quote:Only if you're right to begin with, which you're not.
What you are proposing must necessitate a change in God
quote:But He can deny your theology. And, I believe, He does.
Because Scripture teaches that God cannot deny Himself
quote:No.
Does all of mankind deserve eternal damnation in hell for original sin or not?
quote:This simply slays me. "You disagree with my interpretation of Scripture so you are proud and arrogant." Listen to yourself!
Arminianism is not a petty theological difference or else it would merely be a show of pride and arrogance.
quote:John Polkinghorne is interesting on this subject. He's more interested in how God can interact with the Universe when not in direct miracle mode if you like, but it seems to me this applies to the action of any free entity to a certain extent.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I’m not sure that science can conceive any model that is not at base either deterministic or probabilistic (how could physics of sub-atomic events, which is what I assume you are talking about, provide a test for free will?), but of the two only determinism is a problem for free-willers. A probabilistic model presents no difficulty at all – if sub-atomic events do not follow fixed, mechanical laws, then there is scope for an independent will which is not deterministic influencing them. I’m not arguing that a probabilistic theory proves free-will (of course it does not), but the door is at least open to it. If basic reality is probabilistic, free will can be exercised with no violation of the ‘laws’ of physics. My understanding is that the determinist alternative (a ‘billiard balls’ model of reality) is not what scientists currently believe. I certainly don’t believe it.
quote:Is it the "all" of mankind, "eternal" punishment, the nature of "damnation in hell", the fact that it is "original" (and not committed) sin, or some other point that you object to?
all of mankind deserve[s] eternal damnation in hell for original sin
quote:So, you only have 9 commandments, ignoring this one:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I object to infinite punishment for finite sin; I object to me (and you) being punished for something somebody else did. I object to a model of the relationship between God and Man that is framed in terms of punishment and reward and is basically adversarial.
I think that about covers the basics.
quote:
Exodus 20
The Ten Commandments
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
quote:
Every living oul belongs to me...It is the person who sins that will die.
It is the person who sins who shall die; a son shall not bear responsibility for his father's guilt, nor a father for his son's.
Therefore I shall judge every one of you Israelites on his record, says the Lord God.
quote:Only if people don't repent, then the sin is infinite.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I object to infinite punishment for finite sin
quote:I honestly don't think there is.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Custard,
quote:I take this means ‘free will’ in a broader sense - all our decisions, not just the acceptance of God's grace?
Originally posted by Custard:
I'm officially agnostic on free will.
But how do people who believe in it explain how it works? What part of the brain doesn't follow the (deterministic / probablistic) laws of physics? Is there a pineal gland?
I’m not sure that science can conceive any model that is not at base either deterministic or probabilistic (how could physics of sub-atomic events, which is what I assume you are talking about, provide a test for free will?), but of the two only determinism is a problem for free-willers. A probabilistic model presents no difficulty at all – if sub-atomic events do not follow fixed, mechanical laws, then there is scope for an independent will which is not deterministic influencing them.
quote:Up until middle of last century science could not conceive a probabilistic model either, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new, statistical, dice playing world.
Originally posted by Custard.:
I’m not sure that science can conceive any model that is not at base either deterministic or probabilistic (how could physics of sub-atomic events, which is what I assume you are talking about, provide a test for free will?)
quote:If Calvinism is right, then people who are not "elect" cannot repent, through no fault of their own.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Only if people don't repent, then the sin is infinite.
quote:Does it? How?
Do you have a corresponding problem with infinite grace for finite sin? Logic requires that you do.
quote:I must say, while the logic of this is appealing at first, on closer inspection I don't think it's up to much. Since when was the punishment for a crime linked to the length of time it takes to commit the crime?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I object to infinite punishment for finite sin
quote:Ah but you miss the point Lep. Nobody is suggesting that the time taken to commit the crime is a useful guide.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I must say, while the logic of this is appealing at first, on closer inspection I don't think it's up to much. Since when was the punishment for a crime linked to the length of time it takes to commit the crime?
The most serious of crimes can only take a second commit. Murder (which only takes a gunshot) carries a longer sentence than mail fraud committed over several years. Rightly IMO.
The question is whether rejecting God can be said to be so serious that it is "infinitely serious", even if committed in a finite timeframe. If one accepts that the very purpose of our existence is to glorify God, then I think the case can be made that it is.
quote:That, I would submit, is a matter of opinion. ISTM that the Bible teaches that sin is that serious. I think, to be honest that is the real root of the difference between the views.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
The point is that punishment should fit the crime. And then the question is whether there is anything hideous enough to warrant an eternity (ie a never ending period of time) of damnation. And there isn't.
quote:I will admit that I was assuming you were calling upon God to be just. If you weren't, my mistake. If you were, then it is obviously unjust (on your terms) for God to offer infinite grace in response to finite sin.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Does it? How?
Do you have a corresponding problem with infinite grace for finite sin? Logic requires that you do.
quote:No, with respect it is not. I am not suggesting that sin is not serious, but I am saying that there can be no crime that deserves a never-ending punishment.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:That, I would submit, is a matter of opinion. ISTM that the Bible teaches that sin is that serious. I think, to be honest that is the real root of the difference between the views.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
The point is that punishment should fit the crime. And then the question is whether there is anything hideous enough to warrant an eternity (ie a never ending period of time) of damnation. And there isn't.
Anyway, if it is not to do with lengths of time, then finite v infinite, has, I would respectfully suggest, nothing to do with it.
quote:Indeed. I'm not being facetious, but I am suggesting sin is serious enough to warrant that, you sre saying it is not. That is the difference.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
No, with respect it is not. I am not suggesting that sin is not serious, but I am saying that there can be no crime that deserves a never-ending punishment.
quote:
A God who throws people into endless torment is not compatible with the bible, even with the Old Testament - where he repeatedly reaches down to man in his sinfulness.
quote:Yes, I see that. But you have yet to answer how an infinite conscious physical punishment is proportionate to a crime committed in a lifetime. That is like saying that a small boy who is caught swearing in class should walk to the other side of the universe and back. My point is that however serious the crime, an infinite punishment cannot help but be disproportionate and therefore unjust.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Indeed. I'm not being facetious, but I am suggesting sin is serious enough to warrant that, you sre saying it is not. That is the difference.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
No, with respect it is not. I am not suggesting that sin is not serious, but I am saying that there can be no crime that deserves a never-ending punishment.
quote:
A God who throws people into endless torment is not compatible with the bible, even with the Old Testament - where he repeatedly reaches down to man in his sinfulness.
quote:Ah but it has everything to do with it. If you believe in a God who cannot stand sin, and by extension the sinner - and will send them away to a literal place of torture, then the traditional notion of hell is no problem for you.
An interesting point of view, discussed at length on this thread. But nothing to do with finite and infinite punishment.
quote:I am trying to avoid saying anything about quantum theory at all – it isn’t my field. I accept that indeterminacy is a large part of the theory, and indeterminacy means just that – not affected by external variables (of a sort known to science). Does that exclude free will? On a scientific model, I think you have to have an idea of what basic reality would look like in a free and an unfree universe, and then see which one reality is closest to. Taking into account (as Ricardus says above) that the systems that are studied by science at this level are not volitional, if reality does contain free will then how ought the laws of physics to work for events when that control is off? If the answer is not the “indeterminate, but following statistical norms” of quantum theory, then what would the answer be?
Originally posted by Custard.:
QM leads us to the conclusion that in a given situation, there might be a 50% chance of A happening and a 50% chance of B happening. The probabilities genuinely do not seem to be affected by any external variable
quote:I think the choice of word – mechanism – is telling. Whatever else it may be, a volitional entity is not going to be a mechanism. The conceptual problem in understanding free will is that ‘understanding’ usual means working out how something works and what it does. Free will by definition cannot be analysed like that – if it were comprehensible in the way that, say, photosynthesis is comprehensible, it would not be free.
I find it difficult even to conceive of a mechanism by which that might operate with regards to free will.
quote:Agreed. I don’t rely on chaos theory to support free will. It helps a little to make free will feel more credible (I need just one quantum event to be influenced by choice for my decision to repent of my sin, or not, to be free), but in principle it makes no difference (provided no physicists are allowed to get too close, as many quantum events in my head as necessary can be decreed by choice, whatever that number is).
Chaos theory is still deterministic, though it could lead to a probablistic quantum effect having macroscopic consequences.
