|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: My salvation implies your damnation?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Reading the discussions in the Calvinism and tradition threads, I can't help but feel that some Christians really think that if God has saved us by a certain method (be it his sovereign choice or through conformity to a version of the "One True Church"), then it follows logically that those not subject to or in conformity to those methods, are damned. In other words, my salvation implies your damnation.
This is the binary psychology of religious fundamentalists. If God demands something of me, then it must be the case that he demands it of everyone else. Those, after all, are the rules, are they not? The idea that God's method of dealing with me says nothing about how He (the all-wise sovereign God) may deal with other people in completely different circumstances (or even in very similar circumstances!), seems to be lost on such people. There is a kind of hubris, which subtly sets up "the mechanics of my Christian life" as the criterion by which all people will be judged. And if God should deal differently with other people, then the cry is: "God, that's not fair!" (a bit like the complaint of those who worked all day in the vineyard, in the biblical parable).
Have we, as Christians, been chosen, so that we can strut around feeling "in the right" and therefore - either explicitly or implicitly - passing judgment on those who don't measure up to our scheme of salvation? Or have we been chosen to serve others (and let God be the judge)? It seems that Israel was originally chosen, not so that they could fancy themselves and despise others, but in order to be a blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). Jeremiah 29:7 is an example of this (but sad that they had to be driven into the great suffering of exile in order to fulfil their calling!).
I sometimes wonder whether a certain type of evangelicalism or orthodoxy is just a psychological crutch for people who feel terrified of the feelings of insecurity which difference and 'otherness' induces. Certain forms of Christianity just seem to be an extension of the believer's ego. Yes, there is genuine evil, which must be exposed, but, frankly, most of the talk from those of a fundamentalist ilk seems to revolve around points of theological orthodoxy quite divorced from the issues of real life. Jesus' ministry revolved around the real needs of real people living at the sharp end of life. It was the Pharisees who obsessed about "straining out theological gnats", and they did so quite obviously in order to control those they considered to be beneath them.
My salvation emphatically does not imply that anyone else is damned. I have not been 'chosen' in preference to anyone, and I utterly resent the idea that I could have been. If I am a member of what I consider to be "The One True Church", that gives me no licence to make any assumptions about those outside that institution. If I truly and genuinely am a member of that "One True Church", then my only concern would be to serve the needs of those people (in accordance with Mark 10:43-45), and if that means seeking to bring them into the Church, then fine. But if they remain outside, that is none of my business, but the Church is still there to serve them without strings attached ("freely you have received, now freely give").
If you agree or disagree with my viewpoint (and sorry for the length of the post), do feel free to give your two penn'orth...
[ 12. November 2013, 14:45: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sounds rather cranky.
I doubt anyone is going to own that picture of their motivations. It is illogical and rude as well. But they may point out that you have offered a false either-or: either measure everbody else by your own experience or else refrain from the slightest conclusion oe even speculation regarding other people.
There is in fact at least one more possibility--that God has chosen to act consistentlly according to certain principles which are objective and unchanging. If so, it remains only to find out what those principles might be (e.g. through revelation) and then to either draw conclusions or to hit the floor knee first in holy awe and fear. And then get to work caring for your neighbor out of Christian love and in humility.
Tolerance
[ 12. November 2013, 15:08: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I can't follow, EE, if you are painting the psychology of those who believe in a specific mechanism regarding their salvation, or painting the psychology of those responding negatively to hearing someone else's belief in a specific mechanism regarding their salvation.
Perhaps there's a lesson in that?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
I doubt anyone is going to own that picture of their motivations. It is illogical and rude as well. But they may point out that you have offered a false either-or: either measure everbody else by your own experience or else refrain from the slightest conclusion oe even speculation regarding other people.
I suppose then that a good 60% of the Christian stuff I have been exposed to over the last 40+ years was just a hallucination! How rude of me to believe I was actually awake!!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I can only think that you hallucinated something in the post your are responding to, because after a few re-readings I can't see what in LCs post fits with your response.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I think this "my way is right/your way is wrong" Christian is one of two types:
- someone with shallow faith
- someone who is unsure of their own salvation
In the first category, you have people who have been taught Christianity in a certain way but have never explored the doctrines or teachings for themselves, or compared them to Scripture and other denominations or theological views. Their faith depends on the doctrines or rituals that they are used to. Doing things differently means doing things wrong, to them.
In the second, you have people who are insecure about their standing with God and so deeply worry about other people having an "easy ride" in their eyes - like the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard that you mention. They think "Hey I've been busting my butt doing this and that, and those guys over there think they can get the same thing without doing the same amount of work? Not fair!"
I don't know that I have seen anyone in the threads you mention that match these descriptions, but in real life sadly I've might quite a few of both type.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
There is in fact at least one more possibility--that God has chosen to act consistentlly according to certain principles which are objective and unchanging. If so, it remains only to find out what those principles might be (e.g. through revelation) and then to either draw conclusions or to hit the floor knee first in holy awe and fear. And then get to work caring for your neighbor out of Christian love and in humility.
You mean to say that you are criticising me for saying that we should serve rather than judge others, and you support that with the argument that we should "get to work caring for our neighbor out of Christian love and in humility"?
Forgive me for being somewhat confused. Perhaps I am indeed hallucinating!!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I heartily agree with the OP. The demands God makes of me are not bionding on anyone else, and the demands He makes of anyone else are not binding on me. And anyone who thinks the demands He has made of them - poverty, celibacy, sobriety, whatever - should be binding on everyone else in the entire world on penalty of Damnation are just wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
We all have our cross to bear, yes. But not all crosses are of equal size, shape or weight.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what you're getting at EE, but I think there are a few strawmen in there too.
For instance:
- Neither the RC Church nor the Orthodox Church, both of which have mutually exclusive views on what constitutes the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church believe that to be saved you have to be part of their system and set-up. At times the RC Church has said as much, or appeared to have said as much, but it certainly doesn't say as much now.
Strawman.
- Your salvation (or my salvation) necessitates someone else's damnation.
Again, I don't see anyone on t'other thread who has said that explicitly - although we could imply such a thing of course.
Even those who are quite full-on Calvinists over there aren't pontificating about who is or who isn't among the elect. But I can see what you're getting at.
Personally, I find this less of a strawman than the first point as I have certainly come across some very hyper hyper-Calvinists in my time.
I'm not sure how well represented hyper-Calvinists are on the Ship, though. Not very. We've had one or two climb aboard every now and then but they quickly dive back into the sea when they see what a bunch of reprobates we all are ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If that is what the OP is saying I'd also agree with it to a point. I certainly don't think God makes the same demands of us, but I would see that in terms of the practical demands on our life - poverty, celibacy and so on as you list Marvin.
But the OP refers to Calvinism, and I can't quite see how God would want one person to be a Calvinist and another to believe a prosperity gospel etc.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
EE:
I have yet to meet a christian of any denomination who believes that their salvation means my damnation, and the first group who I associated with were very close Brethren, who were conservative and quite dogmatic in their beliefs, but did not come even close to your caricature.
You may find this type of intolerance in some of the sects. I was brought up as a Jehovah's witness, and it is true that they believe that unless you are one of them, you are damned. That is one sign of a sect.
But in mainstream christianity, you would really have to look to find anyone with views even close to what you describe. Are you able to give examples?
You also seem to deny that any christian ethics are universal, and that no moral rule can apply to everyone. Which is also a bit odd. I can accept that if you feel your conscience has told you to be a vegetarian, that may not apply to me. But I doubt if you are really denying the universality of, say, the obligation to forgive others their sins.
If you have been brought up in a highly intolerant sect. that may explain a lot. In my case, I initially converted from being a highly intolerant JW to a highly intolerant christian. But I've learned, a least in part.
and since you appear to be inveighing against intolerance, you should maybe re-read your own posts to see how they measure up.
Not many on the calvinist thread accused their co-christians of believing blasphemy and worshipping a devil. Which is what you accuse serious calvinists of. Including many of the great heroes of the faith. And yes, there are just as many non-calvinist heroes, and I've never thought any of them worshipped devils. So maybe kettles and pots applies.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But in mainstream christianity, you would really have to look to find anyone with views even close to what you describe. Are you able to give examples?
I've encountered evangelicals who ask if you've been born again (with the implicit corollary that this is required for salvation) and when asked to clarify say they mean baptised as an adult, dismissing infant baptism as "sprinkling". There was a strong implication that those of us who were baptised as infants and later confirmed were not really saved.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
AreThoseMyFeet:
quote:
I've encountered evangelicals who ask if you've been born again (with the implicit corollary that this is required for salvation)
Well given that Jesus said (can we avoid arguments as to how far John is reporting objectively or creatively) "except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God" you may at least be able to see their point.
quote:
and when asked to clarify say they mean baptised as an adult
Well I don't know them, of course, but that is very far from being a typical baptist view, since they tend not to believe in the sacrament as conveying regenerating grace. A few do, like Beasley-Murray.
So if you have met people who believe that it is only by being baptized as an adult that you can be saved so that every member of the Anglican, Orthodox (xN), Roman Catholic, Coptic, Presbyterian (xN), Congregationist churches are condemned to hell, then indeed, you are to be congratulated.
You know some religious idiots. I've never met anyone who had this view, outside of the JWs, of course.
Maybe we move in different circles. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
AreThoseMyFeet:
quote:
I've encountered evangelicals who ask if you've been born again (with the implicit corollary that this is required for salvation) and when asked to clarify say they mean baptised as an adult
Well I don't know them, of course, but that is very far from being a typical baptist view, since they tend not to believe in the sacrament as conveying regenerating grace.
In my experience they mean, "Have you had a one-time, obvious, decisive, you-can-pinpoint-the-day-and-hour conversion experience in which you went from not really and truly being a committed disciple of Christ, to making him your Lord and Savior?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Right. I am not sure I would word an OP quite the way EE did, but I think I agree with the general sentiment.
There are Christians who believe if one does not follow their particular path, one is damned. Not that anyone is required to be damned, but those who do not subscribe to the OneTrueFatih will be.
I disagree that this is only a trait of Calvanists. IIRC, we have a few who currently post here and are of other sects.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But in mainstream christianity, you would really have to look to find anyone with views even close to what you describe. Are you able to give examples?
I've encountered evangelicals who ask if you've been born again (with the implicit corollary that this is required for salvation) and when asked to clarify say they mean baptised as an adult, dismissing infant baptism as "sprinkling". There was a strong implication that those of us who were baptised as infants and later confirmed were not really saved.
Yup. If you move in evangelical circles you will come across these. But there are different kinds of evangelical, some of whom hang everything on a few proof texts. You can tell a lot about the sort of evangelical they are by the proof text they use.
Mine is John 6:37, "whoever comes to me I will never cast out".
Unlike some I'm not really bothered how you come to Jesus as long as you come.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
AreThoseMyFeet:
quote:
I've encountered evangelicals who ask if you've been born again (with the implicit corollary that this is required for salvation)
Well given that Jesus said (can we avoid arguments as to how far John is reporting objectively or creatively) "except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God" you may at least be able to see their point.
quote:
and when asked to clarify say they mean baptised as an adult
Well I don't know them, of course, but that is very far from being a typical baptist view, since they tend not to believe in the sacrament as conveying regenerating grace. A few do, like Beasley-Murray.
So if you have met people who believe that it is only by being baptized as an adult that you can be saved so that every member of the Anglican, Orthodox (xN), Roman Catholic, Coptic, Presbyterian (xN), Congregationist churches are condemned to hell, then indeed, you are to be congratulated.
You know some religious idiots. I've never met anyone who had this view, outside of the JWs, of course.
Maybe we move in different circles.
They were French "non-denominational" evangelicals and visitors to the local baptist church who decided to come along to the joint church discussion group. I'd like to hope that it was a language issue but their English seemed a little too good for that. Our resident baptists at least have the good manners not to publicly state that they consider my baptism invalid.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, though, they don't tend to believe in baptismal regeneration ... it's what Mousethief said, they like to pin-point a time when you were consciously 'saved' ie. knew that your sins were forgiven and had been converted.
This may or may not coincide with baptism in most forms of evangelical soteriology.
Even if they did think your baptism was valid, as paedobaptist evangelicals such as Anglican and Presbyterian and Congregationalist evangelicals would, they'd still be looking for you to have a conscious conversion experience.
That wouldn't necessarily have to be a flashing-lights Damascus Road conversion, but they would try to pin you down as to whether you'd 'prayed the sinner's prayer' or 'asked Jesus into your heart' or 'acknowleged Christ as your personal Lord and saviour' - there are various phrases and buzz words.
More nuanced evangelicals, like one of our posters here, aren't so prescriptive and aren't that bothered how you came in, as it were, provided that you are 'there'.
There's a fair bit of latitude within evangelical circles and the elastic stretches further than might be expected at first.
So, I'd be very surprised if these French non-denominational types believed that you weren't saved if you hadn't been baptised as a believer (or as an adult) but I'd equally be surprised if they weren't looking for some kind of 'evidence' in the form of a conscious conversion experience or the acknowledgement of a particular formula or prayer for forgiveness and 'commitment'.
That said, you will find some on the fringes of evangelicalism who would insist on believer's baptism as a necessary corollary of salvation.
Most Baptists are strongly credobaptist, of course, but they tend not to doubt the salvation of paedobaptists and others who don't hold the same views and practices as they do.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can't think of anyone who falls completely into that category, lilBuddha, but perhaps I've avoided those posts.
Correct me if I'm wrong but even ardent RC apologists like InGoB and ardent Orthodox converts like Ad Orientem - however dogmatic they both become - wouldn't categorically state that only RCs and Orthodox will be saved.
Nor do I see a similar or parallel stance adopted by any of the Calvinist posters either.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
There is in fact at least one more possibility--that God has chosen to act consistentlly according to certain principles which are objective and unchanging. If so, it remains only to find out what those principles might be (e.g. through revelation) and then to either draw conclusions or to hit the floor knee first in holy awe and fear. And then get to work caring for your neighbor out of Christian love and in humility.
You mean to say that you are criticising me for saying that we should serve rather than judge others, and you support that with the argument that we should "get to work caring for our neighbor out of Christian love and in humility"?
Forgive me for being somewhat confused. Perhaps I am indeed hallucinating!!
WTF, man? I am NOT criticizing you, dude, this is Purgatory. Hell is thataway. I'd go there if I felt the urge.
I can't even figure out what you're on about now.
All I was doing was pointing out that there is a third alternative to the two you mention--to either a) being a jackass to other people because their religious experience doesn't match one's own, or b) giving up any claim to know anything at all that might pertain to the salvation of other people.
The third alternative is the traditional one, namely, to look in the Scriptures (pardon me, you tradition lovers!) and see what God has to say--and then, with a huge double helping of humility and "I could be wrong," to get on with appropriate actions based on that information. Which I am assuming would involve evangelism in some cases and Christian love and service in all.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Most Baptists are strongly credobaptist, of course, but they tend not to doubt the salvation of paedobaptists and others who don't hold the same views and practices as they do.
They leave that to some of the minority Pentecostal groups. Been there. Got burned.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The third alternative is the traditional one, namely, to look in the Scriptures (pardon me, you tradition lovers!) and see what God has to say--
Not offended. Scripture is part of Tradition.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Not many on the calvinist thread accused their co-christians of believing blasphemy and worshipping a devil. Which is what you accuse serious calvinists of. Including many of the great heroes of the faith. And yes, there are just as many non-calvinist heroes, and I've never thought any of them worshipped devils. So maybe kettles and pots applies.
This is the part of the OP that confused me. It seems to me to be more likely that non-Calvinists will say that Calvinists are so mistaken as to not really be worshiping God, which may be taken to imply a threat to their salvation. On the other hand although I've often heard Calvinists claim salvation to be contingent on rebirth or a personal commitment of some sort, I don't think I've ever heard it made contingent on acceptance of Calvinism.
[ 13. November 2013, 06:28: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't think of anyone who falls completely into that category, lilBuddha, but perhaps I've avoided those posts.
Correct me if I'm wrong but even ardent RC apologists like InGoB and ardent Orthodox converts like Ad Orientem - however dogmatic they both become - wouldn't categorically state that only RCs and Orthodox will be saved.
Nor do I see a similar or parallel stance adopted by any of the Calvinist posters either.
It is certainly possible to encounter Pentecostals who have an ironclad belief that an Roman Catholic will not be saved. I've heard a talk from a very fine Roman Catholic describing his encounter with a Pentecontalist who ended up being rather shaken to discover that the RC didn't have horns and a tail.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
That is absolutely the case in many strands of Protestantism. But the charge is usually idolatry, works-salvation, praying to Mary and goodness what else but not as narrow a charge as failure to accept Calvinism.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, yes and yes ... and yes
Yes to Mousethief, Lamb Chopped, Orfeo and mdijon.
The most virulently hardline 'RCs can't possibly be saved' views I've ever encountered have come from Brethren people and various forms of hardline Ulster or Glaswegian Protestant.
I've certainly encountered anti-RC views among Penties but never any suggestion that it would be completely impossible for RCs to be saved ... that said, some were very suspicious of the RC charismatic movement which they believed to be 'counterfeit'.
Nevertheless, in such instances, there was never the suggestion that RCs couldn't possibly be saved without giving up their tradition and becoming Protestant.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I can see what you're getting at EE, but I think there are a few strawmen in there too.
For instance:
- Neither the RC Church nor the Orthodox Church, both of which have mutually exclusive views on what constitutes the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church believe that to be saved you have to be part of their system and set-up. At times the RC Church has said as much, or appeared to have said as much, but it certainly doesn't say as much now.
Strawman.
- Your salvation (or my salvation) necessitates someone else's damnation.
Again, I don't see anyone on t'other thread who has said that explicitly - although we could imply such a thing of course.
I admit that I probably could have worded the OP a bit better.
I'll try to explain where I am coming from...
Let's take the concept of election. I referred in the OP to the calling of Israel, and I linked to the example of Jeremiah 29:7 - quote:
And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will have peace.
There is no sense that the people of Babylon could only be blessed if they became Israelites. Israel in exile was to seek the peace of Babylon - for the sake of Babylon and for their own sake, and therefore there was no sense that blessing from God could only come to those who were part of Israel. Blessing came through Israel to those who were outside Israel and who continued to remain outside Israel.
Here's an analogy:
The fire service exists primarily to save people and property from the destructive effect of fire. The State seeks to save people and property from fire damage through the fire service. Various people are employed or commissioned to be firemen and women, and they seek to serve the community in the way I have just described.
Now someone is in danger of suffering serious injury and possibly death from the effect of fire and smoke, and the fire service responds to the emergency and saves that person. We wouldn't say that the fire service can only save that person if he himself becomes a member of the fire brigade, i.e. a fireman. His 'salvation' is not found in the fire brigade in that sense. The fire brigade as an institution has served him by acting in a certain way to his benefit. There is a sense in which the fire service is the hands and feet of the State as far as dealing with fire is concerned. The men and women of the fire service have a calling to serve the needs of the community; their calling does not imply that only they should benefit from the fire service and others who are not firemen and women should not. That would be absurd.
Now the comparison to the Church is obvious.
In the case of Israel in Babylon and the fire service in our society, both institutions exist to serve those who are not members and who remain outside.
The Church is not Christ, but the Body of Christ. The body acts in accordance with the purposes of Christ, but the body is not an end in itself. We are not saved simply for being in the body, but rather we are in the body that we may be used by Christ in His work of bringing blessing and salvation to others.
It seems to me that predestinarian Calvinists have a totally false view of election. They seem to think that "if God has chosen me, then it must follow - given that universalism is not true - that God has not chosen someone else." I am not suggesting that they believe that there isn't enough room in heaven for everyone and God is having to play a game of musical chairs, but rather that their idea of election implies that, in a very general sense, God's choice of one person is in preference to another. Hence their interpretation of "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated". God clearly did not hate Esau in the absolute sense, because we see the love of God at work in Esau's life bringing him into reconciliation with Jacob (Genesis 33).
This exclusivist view of election is binary thinking. It's a false dichotomy. There is an alternative - and truly wonderful - view of election, which is somewhat similar to the commissioning of someone to do a particular job: he is chosen in order to fulfil a particular ministry or service to bring blessing to others. It's really a win-win situation. But I suppose this interpretation is unacceptable to some people, because it is devastating to one's sense of personal pride and the need to feel special and favoured vis-a-vis the great mass of humanity.
And there is similar thinking even among non-Calvinists. There are those - even on the Ship - who give the impression that your soul is in danger if you are not a fully paid up member of their "One True Church". This would indicate that the institution of the Church is a kind of end in itself, and salvation is only to be found within its walls. This flies totally in the face of the idea of the Church as servant, and as being the "salt of the earth".
I would agree that most Christians accept that God can save people who are outside their particular way of thinking, but in practice this appears in many instances to be mere lip service. A fundamentalist Catholic may make noises about "ecclesial communities" and all that stuff (aka BS), and may not wish to limit God's sovereign working among the ignorant and unreached, but in practice, "if you are not part of my set up, then your soul is in great danger". There doesn't seem to be any vision of the Church as the true "Body of Christ", who came not to be served but to serve. The Church exists, like the fire service, not for the purpose of self-aggrandisement, empire building and membership accumulation, but in order to minister to the needs of the world. It's a completely outgoing mentality that is required. After all, we are called to be "witnesses", which is what the work of the Holy Spirit equips us to be, if Acts 1:8 is to be believed.
An inclusive and servant idea of election and of the Church is really what the world is crying out for, IMHO!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I think your characterisation of Calvinism is being driven more by your own prejudices than by anything I've seen expressed on the ship - and anywhere outside very exclusivist hyper calvinist circles.
Furthermore, it's driven by an understanding of election that not even everyone on that election thread would have agreed with.
To be honest I don't see much value in this thread; your contention is basically "Despite their protestations to the contrary, here is what they *really* think". At the most jejune level, it's applicable to everyone but the universalists amongst us.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
I think your characterisation of Calvinism is being driven more by your own prejudices than by anything I've seen expressed on the ship - and anywhere outside very exclusivist hyper calvinist circles.
Furthermore, it's driven by an understanding of election that not even everyone on that election thread would have agreed with.
To be honest I don't see much value in this thread; your contention is basically "Despite their protestations to the contrary, here is what they *really* think". At the most jejune level, it's applicable to everyone but the universalists amongst us.
I suppose that's one way of refusing to engage with the points I've made.
If you don't think much of the thread, then I am sure you can find plenty of other things to do than waste your time with it.
I realise that most Calvinists are not universalists. If you think that it is an act of prejudice to draw out the logical implications of that, then obviously I am not the one with a problem.
[ 13. November 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It strikes me as very engaged in the flaw in your argument.
I'm nowhere near Calvinism and never have been, but I don't think I've ever heard anything I identified as "if God has chosen me, then it must follow - given that universalism is not true - that God has not chosen someone else."
And I don't think that Calvinists generally think that non-Calvinists are not saved. Indeed I believe it was a Calvinist on the thread on the topic who suggested the metaphor of back-stage mechanics being explained rather than the central players and substance of the play.
I don't think there's any evidence to support your view.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon
I don't think there's any evidence to support your view.
Ignoring, of course, the biblical evidence I presented.
Furthermore, I was not talking about what Calvinists think about the salvation of non-Calvinists, but how they understand the concept of election. They may indeed accept that God chooses people who may not think like them, but it's their understanding of how election works that is the point I am discussing.
So don't attack a straw man.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
In which case your understanding of election is unclear to me. Or why, if this is about the Calvinist understanding of election, it isn't on the Calvinism thread.
I wasn't referring to biblical evidence of a theological position (personally I have problems with the phrase "biblical evidence" in that context anyway).
The evidence that I think is lacking is for your characterization of Calvinists.
As an aside, I don't believe there is such a thing as election in salvation but that is by the way.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I suppose that's one way of refusing to engage with the points I've made.
Your main point being:
"I can't help but feel that some Christians really think that if God has saved us by a certain method (be it his sovereign choice or through conformity to a version of the "One True Church"), then it follows logically that those not subject to or in conformity to those methods, are damned."
To which the answer surely is, regardless of your feelings, they don't really think that at all.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what you're getting at EE but I'm having difficulty squaring it with Calvinists, RCs and Orthodox that I know both here and in real life ...
All of them would agree with you that the Church - however understood in each of those systems - exists for the benefit of others and not as some kind of self-serving entity or club.
How that works out in practice is a moot point, but I certainly know Calvinists of quite a full-on variety who are engaged in social action, helping others and so forth - I could cite a very excellent example I know of in a northern city.
I also have reservations with the Calvinist schema when carried to its logical conclusion and have agreed with you that it represents an extremely binary system when taken to that extent.
I also agree with you on the 'Jacob I loved, Esau I hated' thing and the way that Esau becomes a major player in the drama in Genesis 33 - thereby suggesting that he was never completely blotted out of the overall scheme of things.
I know what you're getting and can see where you're coming from but don't necessarily agree that the baleful effects you describe are the almost invariable outcome of these positions.
For instance, whilst RCs and Orthodox would not regard me as a member of the Church as they see it, the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - in real life (as opposed to online) I've never been treated with anything other than the utmost respect and consideration by both RC and Orthodox Christians ... baring a few zealous converts who were pretty ignorant of the traditions they'd left in order to become Orthodox and who did take a rather binary view.
But that's a fundamentalist mindset as much as anything else and the fundamentalist mindset can be found across all Christian traditions, churches and denominations.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
chris stiles -
If you really feel the need to nit-pick over every turn of phrase in what I have written, instead of engaging with the arguments, then I would suggest that probably this thread isn't really for you.
Do you usually accuse people of prejudice every time they express an opinion with language that refers to their own impressions and experiences?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Are we allowed to question your impressions or experiences on this thread? Because so far no-one seems to share them, and they don't seem backed up by any post by a card-carrying Calvinist on the ship that you can point to.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon
Because so far no-one seems to share them...
Then you obviously haven't bothered to read the thread.
If you have a sensible argument, then I am willing to engage with you. Otherwise, I am not wasting my time answering snide little put-downs. I've got better things to do.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you really feel the need to nit-pick over every turn of phrase in what I have written, instead of engaging with the arguments, then I would suggest that probably this thread isn't really for you.
No, I have read that other thread and I don't see anyone saying what you are claiming that they are saying. If you have particular instances of that, do bring it up - at least it'll give the particular persons the ability to respond to what you think they mean.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
But that's a fundamentalist mindset as much as anything else and the fundamentalist mindset can be found across all Christian traditions, churches and denominations.
But it is precisely the fundamentalist mindset that I am discussing. I gave the examples of Calvinism and Catholicism, but it can apply, of course, to other traditions and denominations. Inevitably this mindset has an influence on the way a church operates within its community. Certainly in the town where I live, there is a history of denominational insularity, evidenced by the fact that a simple - and relatively cost effective scheme - to evangelise the entire town several times a year through the delivery of an inter-church broadsheet, was killed off by parochialism and self-interest. The cry "What's in it for us?" could be detected by those with even minimal spiritual discernment! The concept of having an enlarged and outgoing vision of the Church of Jesus Christ seems as remote as ever, as each little congregation and denomination obsesses about its own concerns.
Perhaps I have moved in the wrong circles! Perhaps in other parts of the country, the Church is a glorious army with banners, trampling down evil and releasing captives on every side. If so, then I clearly need to go to Specsavers!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
EE
Each time I come back to this thread I come back to two things:
I agree and so have others here that Christians of all theological persuasions can and do judge one another, find one another wanting and even speculate about the validity/ authenticity of each other's faith
But, that response doesn't seem to be enough for you and what I keep feeling is that you trying to debate in a general sense something which has really upset you in a far more specific sense and if I am right then this debate is only going to frustrate you.
If I am wrong, I apologise and in that case perhaps you could focus the discussion a little bit more specifically as I am struggling to get to the heart of what you saying?
Thank you
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There's a parallel to the OP in the rather violent opposition to Same-Sex Marriage, where many Christians (although nowhere near all, please avoid the NALTs) say that allowing persons of the same gender to marry will undermine or destroy the complainer's marriage.
As if one had anything to do with the other.
But these complaining Christians want to impose their particular "but my book says" view on people who don't necessarily even read that book, let alone feel they are to be constrained by what it may or may not say.
At least, ISTM, that is part of what EE said in the OP.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you have a sensible argument, then I am willing to engage with you. Otherwise, I am not wasting my time answering snide little put-downs. I've got better things to do.
It's funny, but each time you post there's a sense of irony. When you talk about someone failing to engage with your post, it is usually a way of failing to engage with theirs. When you mention unfair criticism, you are are often returning it. Now you talk about snide little put-downs and tell me you have better things to do.
I think the bit of your OP that most people seem to agree with is the idea that God does not require the same things of everyone. The bit that most people seem to be struggling with is the idea that Calvinistics have a particular problem believing this. I don't see it on the thread on the ship (unless you can point me to a post) and if you fall back simply on your experiences and impressions without further justification I don't know where we go except to work out how many others have similar perceptions of Calvinists.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There's also an irony in that EE can be among the most fundamentalist of all the posters aboard Ship himself when it comes to certain issues.
As for the inter-church newspaper thing coming to grief on the reef of self-interest and parochial or narrow-minded 'What's in it for me?' attitudes ... well, yes, it's sad but I'm sure that your town isn't alone in that and that similar issues have foundered elsewhere for similar reasons ...
But I'm Calvinistic enough at times to believe that the ultimate eternal destiny of the good people of your town doesn't dangle by the thread of whether they received an inter-church newspaper or not ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
But I'm Calvinistic enough at times to believe that the ultimate eternal destiny of the good people of your town doesn't dangle by the thread of whether they received an inter-church newspaper or not ...
Errmm... that was just an example (especially considering the absence of any other initiative to apprise the good people of this south coast town of the message of the gospel. And no, I am not advocating lottery Arminianism - "you're damned because your dog ate your leaflet before you could read it").
quote:
There's also an irony in that EE can be among the most fundamentalist of all the posters aboard Ship himself when it comes to certain issues.
Except that I am not the sort of person to stand up in a pulpit and say: "Doesn't it bother you that all those people (who don't agree with me and us) are going to hell?" And yes, I have heard that kind of message many times.
I think there is a difference between having a definite point of view about various issues, and actually damning those who don't agree.
Here's a little flavour of what I am talking about from another current thread...
quote:
I guess I'm morally obliged to point out that the RCC considers ex-RCs to be in a particularly precarious situation as far as salvation is concerned.
Admittedly IngoB did try to soften the blow by adding: "You probably don't need to hear that from me, but I'm happy to go PM if I am mistaken…"
Yes, of course, I realise that "being in a particularly precarious position" is not equivalent to "definitely being damned", but it's as near as damn it ('scuse the pun).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
IngoB is your example of a Calvinist's unhelpful take on election and salvation?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
mdijon -
If you're not even going to bother to read the thread (which goes beyond merely talking about Calvinism) then I suggest you don't embarrass yourself any further.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Now I'm confused. If I understand you correctly, your main interest lies in opposing Calvinism and things you see happening on the Calvinism thread. So why didn't you post this there, instead of starting a secondary thread critiquing another thread? I took it to be an independent topic.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I have no doubts that there will be many Catholics in hell, and many non-Catholics in heaven. And among the saints we will not only find other Christians of other denominations, or Jews, but also Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Pagans and even atheists. This is official teaching of the RCC, and while it may have been proclaimed most clearly at Vatican II, the lines of argument for this are old. Here's for example the ever reliable Aquinas:
quote:
Summa Theologiae IIa IIae q 2 a 7:
If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."
Summa Theologiae IIa IIae q 2 a 7:
Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things--first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.
My comment to Cara on the other thread concerned a different matter, namely the state of a Catholic who leaves the RCC in (presumably) sufficient knowledge of that Church's teachings and claims. As it happens, extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church no salvation") is a maxim that was not originally targeted at non-Christians at all. It was targeted at heretics, schismatic and apostates. This is how the Church Fathers discuss it, and they are agreed and rather brutal in their assessment. This leaves the RCC no choice but to maintain "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) And I did not attempt to "soften my blow" in this regard. I simply stated my belief that 1) I have a moral duty to warn people of this where relevant, but 2) mostly they sort of know this and rarely much good seems to come of me stating this again. I would not have mentioned it at all, except for the fact that Cara appears exceptionally willing to listen even to "negative and personal" comments, a rare ability indeed...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
IngoB is your example of a Calvinist's unhelpful take on election and salvation?
In my experience, Catholicism and Calvinism both tend to be on the block when people get heated about the law of non-contradiction.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
