Ship of Fools: My salvation implies your damnation?

Thread: My salvation implies your damnation? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026451

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Ah heck. The perils of posting on a mobile. Ignore the last word please?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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!!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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!!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

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]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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?"

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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 ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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!

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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]

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

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

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ...

[Biased]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

IngoB is your example of a Calvinist's unhelpful take on election and salvation?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, yes, Zach82 and it's not hard to see why ...

They both share similar tendencies. Calvinism is a form of late medieval Scholasticism taken a few stages further ...

[Biased]

More seriously, yes, that is true but there are other Christian belief systems that contain paradoxes and apparent contradictions too, so I'm not singling them out.

Coming back to the point that InGoB makes about RC's who leave the RC Church and join some other body in full knowledge and apprehension of what they are doing putting themselves in a precarious position as far as salvation is concerned ...

Well, this neither surprises nor shocks me as the Orthodox believe the same - but neither the RCs nor the Orthodox are saying that people who do so are necessarily damned.

To use the Ark of Salvation analogy, which they both use, it'd be like saying that those who remain inside the Ark - Noah and his family - stand more chance of being saved from drowning than one of the sons, say, who decides to jump over board and swim for it.

He may drown. He may find a passing piece of drift wood and cling to it until he's washed up on Mount Ararat. He may even be able to swim there ...

But he's on a surer footing if he stays inside the Ark.

Before the rest of us become outraged and start throwing stones ... think about it a second.

If that sounds far too exclusive, then how would it sound if an evangelical, say, said that whilst they wouldn't want to pontificate about the eternal destiny of someone in Outer Mongolia who had little chance to hear the Gospel, they believed that their salvation would be on a surer - or a completely sure - footing had they heard the Gospel, responded in faith and became an active member of one or other of the various Christian churches.

It's a looser viewpoint, but it's a similar principle.

All the RCs and the Orthodox are saying is that there is, in their view, places where one can be sure of securer footing ie. within the purlieu of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

What my evangelical is saying is that there is a place with a secure footing and that is faith in Christ wherever professed but preferably within the purlieu of a small-o orthodox Trinitarian church.

The difference is one of degree. Neither is setting themselves up as judge and jury on what happens to people who don't fit their schema necessarily. Heck, the RCs aren't claiming that being RC guarantees salvation.

Whether we agree with it or not, their views are commensurate with their ecclesiology. These views only jar with Protestants, on the whole, because we have a much looser ecclesiology and some of us don't appear to have any ecclesiology at all ...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Actually, it is difficult for me to see why, and it brings me to despair that Anglicanism has become a word for theological incoherence.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Theological incoherence or theological nuance?

[Biased]

Show me the incoherence in the position I've outlined.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Theological incoherence or theological nuance?

Show me the incoherence in the position I've outlined.

The point where you declare the law of non-contradiction is a purely Catholic or Calvinist concern.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
InGoB

It's "IngoB", the first four letters are my first name.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, this neither surprises nor shocks me as the Orthodox believe the same - but neither the RCs nor the Orthodox are saying that people who do so are necessarily damned.

I don't know about the Orthodox. But if this is done with full knowledge and deliberate consent, then in fact the RCC is saying that such people will go to hell. Obviously that still leaves an escape route via a discussion of what full knowledge and deliberate consent entails. But I think that in our times we very much err on the side over-emphasizing the various hindrances to that. (One sometimes wonders if anyone ever knows or decides anything...)

So I am sorry, but no, for ex-Catholics the "get out of hell free" cards are in very short supply indeed. And that there are any at all is frankly already pushing the envelope as far as the Church Fathers are concerned. Of course, once upon a time that would have hardly raised an eyebrow. After all, if a quick wank could land you into hell, why wouldn't such an act of outright betrayal of the Church? It is only now when even the non-universalists among us are almost-universalists that this pretty unequivocal threat suddenly appears so jarring. Nevertheless, this is the clear teaching of the RCC, as explicitly maintained by Vatican II.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Now I'm confused.

Me too, but I suspect we're just embarrassing ourselves and not reading the thread properly. Another little touch of irony.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Correct me if I'm wrong, Zach82 but I don't think I asserted that the law of non-contradiction was a purely Catholic or Calvinist concern.

If it came across as if I did then either I've not explained myself properly or you haven't read my posts correctly.

Which wouldn't be the first time in each case ...

[Biased]

What I would say is that on certain issues Catholicism and Calvinism can both deploy various levels of sophistry - and this, among other things, like a shared medieval Scholastic heritage, is what they hold in common.

Other traditions are equally prone to sophistry and indeed casuistry at times - only over different issues.

Does that make it clearer?

@IngoB - apologies for misspelling your name, another weakness of mine ...

It won't just be me, of course, but I often raise my eyebrows when I see both the RCs and the Orthodox citing the Fathers as though they were their own personal property when, of course, the Fathers of both East and West are the common heritage and property of both.

Sure, I know it all depends on which side you come down on the Schism of 1054 ... but it does grate a bit.

Sure, the RC Church does, officially, take a very dim view of the salvific chances of those who knowingly depart the fold, just as it does if anyone has a quick wank.

But as you will well know, presumably as someone who is guilty of the latter rather than the former, there are ways around that ...

[Razz]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, the RC Church does, officially, take a very dim view of the salvific chances of those who knowingly depart the fold, just as it does if anyone has a quick wank. But as you will well know, presumably as someone who is guilty of the latter rather than the former, there are ways around that ...

First, that I can invent excuses does not mean that God will honour them. I find the ease with which most people make up God's mind for Him quite astonishing. This basically comes back to the fact that even most non-universalists are almost-universalists these days. Basically, the thinking goes, if God is offered the slightest opportunity to save us, He will. Therefore, if I can invent an excuse for myself by any stretch of the imagination, God will use it to my advantage. Well, I'm not so sure. I think human salvation is not the only thing on God's mind, and the old estimates that most of humanity will end up in hell have a lot going for them in terms of scriptural support. Second, I find it a lot easier to construct likely valid excuses for wanking than for leaving the Church (unless this derives from clerical abuse or the like). That deliberate consent is impeded by strong sexual urges and bad habits is rather believable. On top of that, the consistent failure of the Church to assert its teachings on sexual morality over and against the Zeitgeist can impede full knowledge. As far as leaving the Church goes, if at all only the latter kind of point may come into play.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

If that sounds far too exclusive, then how would it sound if an evangelical, say, said that whilst they wouldn't want to pontificate about the eternal destiny of someone in Outer Mongolia who had little chance to hear the Gospel, they believed that their salvation would be on a surer - or a completely sure - footing had they heard the Gospel, responded in faith and became an active member of one or other of the various Christian churches.

Sure - but on this basis, any group that believes in evangelisation of any sort is on the slipper slope that EE dislikes.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
I find the ease with which most people make up God's mind for Him quite astonishing. This basically comes back to the fact that even most non-universalists are almost-universalists these days. Basically, the thinking goes, if God is offered the slightest opportunity to save us, He will.

I know we've had this discussion (or rather, argument) before, and judging by your responses to it, I don't expect any change, but I will say that the ball is not in God's court as far as willingness to save people is concerned. He saves. Period. It's not a question of trying to persuade God to save people, because the One who "desires all people to be saved" needs no persuasion in that regard. If a person is evil (of whatever religious persuasion), then the reality of God - in other words, the reality of salvation - will be hell for that person, because evil cannot abide the presence of God. It's got nothing at all to do with a person who desperately and genuinely wants to be saved being confronted by a God who says "no, because you dropped out of the One True Church" - i.e. you violated paragaph 324, clause 11(b) (or whatever) of the small print (and you even dared to perform a forbidden action on your own anatomy), so therefore burn...

As for the fate of people who leave the RCC...

Just this morning I read a bit of The Catholic Controversy which (as I am sure you know) is the collection of writings by St. Francis de Sales in his controversy with the Calvinists of Savoy around the turn of the 17th century, in which he states the following, concerning evil ministers in the Catholic Church:

quote:
But why may we not lay down that the reprobate and wicked are of the true Church, when they can even be pastors and bishops therein? That is certain: is not Judas reprobate? And yet he was Apostle and bishop...

He then gives a list of other examples of reprobate leaders in the Church, and then makes the quite astonishing statement...

quote:
All this corresponds with the holy word of Our Lord (Matt. xxiii. 2), who considered the Scribes and Pharisees as the true pastors of the true Church of that time, since he commands that they should be obeyed, and yet considered them not as elect but as reprobate.

(Chapter VII, emphasis mine)

Jesus referred to the Scribes and the Pharisees as "sons of hell", and yet such people could be considered leaders of the "true Church". This is in complete contrast to the words of Christ prior to His ascension and the Day of Pentecost: "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

The Church's function is to witness to Christ, not to witness to the devil, as the Scribes and the Pharisees were doing. Now can anyone seriously argue that an institution in which the leaders are not witnessing to Christ, but are "sons of the devil", could be called "The True Church"? This is a definition of 'church' reduced entirely to the mere exoskeleton of the institution, devoid of any spiritual life and reality. Such a view of the church is worse than useless.

Now even if someone could argue that the church could be reduced in this way, and that the mere institution could act as a kind of "holding mechanism" to keep certain doctrines and practices ticking over until such time as godly leaders come into it, it still seems rather absurd to say that those who have left the church as a direct result of the actions of evil leaders should be damned.

If we draw out the implications of St Francis de Sales' statement, we can see from Matthew 23, that it is entirely understandable that people will be offended - and driven away - by the actions of evil leaders. In verse 13 we read: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." And in verse 15 Jesus cautions against the ministry and witness of these religious leaders: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." So, in fact, submission to these leaders could land you in hell, not fleeing from them!!

So, looking at the witness of Scripture, I assume you would agree that St Francis of Sales was wrong? If not, why not?

And if you perhaps think he was wrong, then presumably you would argue that there are no evil leaders in the RCC, from whose ministry people could legitimately flee?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I will say that the ball is not in God's court as far as willingness to save people is concerned.

This is really quite blasphemous. It's not mercy if God has to do it, but a sort of mechanical Pelagianism.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
This is really quite blasphemous.

It's apparently BLASPHEMY to say that God is willing to save all!!

I've heard it all now.

God help us.

[brick wall]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I said it was blasphemous to say that God has to save. There is quite a big difference.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
I said it was blasphemous to say that God has to save. There is quite a big difference.

Nope. Not if logic means anything there isn't.

I think it's really quite blasphemous to say that there is a conflict between God's will and God's actions.

If you want to believe in a God, who is afflicted by an internal conflict, that is up to you. I won't be joining you. (Funny, but Jesus said something about things "divided against themselves"!).

But, of course, you simply cannot see how the concept of saying 'yes' to a gift is not equivalent to earning it. If I receive a gift at Christmas, I must remember that when I receive it from the hands of the person giving it to me, and I then perform the hard labour of ripping off the wrapping paper, I have then quite obviously earned that gift by the sweat of my brow!! (Hmmm... very strange... [Confused]

)

Furthermore, I really cannot imagine why God consistently and persistently calls people to repent, if the ball is not in man's court?

"I command you to do something, even though it's all down to me, and you can't do anything."

Spot the contradiction in the above statement.

Answers on a postcard, please...

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

So, how do you explain the difference between the person who eagerly unwraps this gift and the person who casts it aside with a cursory, "no thank you"? Now please read what I said carefully before answering. How do you explain the difference between the one who accepts and the one who refuses the offer? I'm not just asking to the describe the difference, I'm asking you explain it. What, if any, qualitative difference exists between those two people both prior to and after the event of acceptance?

[ 14. November 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
He saves. Period. It's not a question of trying to persuade God to save people, because the One who "desires all people to be saved" needs no persuasion in that regard.

God's certainly desires to save all people, but He does not unconditionally desire to save all people. Not only is there no evidence in scripture for such a claim, worse, it flies in the face of our entire existence. If God unconditionally desired to save us, then this world is patently absurd and God should simply put us all into heaven right now. This world is really nothing but one giant opportunity for us to meet the conditions for salvation. It is Eden mark II, a second and final chance, with the bar lowered in most ways but raised in some.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So, looking at the witness of Scripture, I assume you would agree that St Francis of Sales was wrong? If not, why not?

That's a funny question, given that you have cut away all of de Sales' scriptural references, except for one, which you nevertheless manage to ignore: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matt 23:2). For those who do wish to get the actual - very scriptural - argument of de Sales, rather than EE's mutilated version thereof, see here.

A RC who sins due to being misled by a purported evil priest would not be considered culpable for this sin. RC morals always require knowledge and consent before assigning responsibility, and our salvation is affected only by what we are responsible for. However RC teaching is much less lenient on those in charge: the priest is as pastor held responsible for all souls assigned to his care, and their fate will be reckoned onto him personally. As St. John Chrysostom says: "What severe punishment, then, must be expected by one who has not only to render an account of the offenses which he himself has separately committed, but also incurs extreme danger on account of the sins committed by others? For if we shudder at undergoing judgment for our own misdeeds, believing that we shall not be able to escape the fire of the other world, what must one expect to suffer who has to answer for so many others? To prove the truth of this, listen to the blessed Paul, or rather not to him, but to Christ speaking in him, when he says: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit, for they watch for your souls as they that shall give account." (Hebrews 13:17) Can the dread of this threat be slight?" By any natural reckoning, nobody should wish to become priest. This is entering a lion's den. To become pope is to enter that lion's den when the lion's are crazed with hunger, and to poor a bucket of warm steaming blood over yourself while loudly singing "Here, kitty, kitty." Imagine that dialogue with God: "Welcome, Pope XYZ. You signed responsible for all sins of a billion Catholics for what was it again ... ah yes, 20 years. Here's an uplink to the Exabyte-sized database with our records of these sins. Now let's find the record of the good you did to set against that... Sorry, Gabriel, could you please hand me that manilla folder over there?"

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And if you perhaps think he was wrong, then presumably you would argue that there are no evil leaders in the RCC, from whose ministry people could legitimately flee?

The day when there are no evil leaders in the RCC that one should flee is the day when pigs learn to fly.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
So, how do you explain the difference between the person who eagerly unwraps this gift and the person who casts it aside with a cursory, "no thank you"? Now please read what I said carefully before answering. How do you explain the difference between the one who accepts and the one who refuses the offer? I'm not just asking to the describe the difference, I'm asking you explain it. What, if any, qualitative difference exists between those two people both prior to and after the event of acceptance?

Well, firstly I will approach this question of the operation of human free will from a biblical point of view, and not from a point of view of your choosing.

We know that human free will exists. If that is not the case then Isaiah 5:1-7 (for example) makes no sense. The challenge of this passage was blatantly ignored on the Calvinism thread, so I will remind you of it here. God expected His vineyard to bring forth good grapes, and He resourced it to do so. The text is absolutely crystal clear, and there is no wriggle room for the predestinarian: both God's will and provision are affirmed - "I expected it to bring forth good grapes... what more could have been done to my vineyard that I have not done in it?" And given the severity of God's judgment on His rebellious vineyard, this passage cannot be dismissed as having nothing to say about salvation and condemnation.

Now this vineyard represents potentially two types of people:

1. Those who respond to God's provision and bring forth good grapes (please note that God's will is that ALL members of His vineyard should come into this category).

2. Those, who receiving the same provision from God, rebel against Him and bring forth wild grapes.

Now clearly the distinction between these two groups of people has not been caused or willed by God. So where is the source of the distinction? It is in man. And it is not human weakness, or fate, or original sin, or a totally depraved human nature which determine a response, because God has overruled all of that with His provision of grace.

Therefore there is only one factor that explains this distinction:

free will.

Why some people choose to reject God's grace is a matter for them. It is completely unreasonable of you to expect me to explain why a particular individual chooses to spurn the love and grace of God, because you know as well I do that I am not party to that information - and cannot be. Such information is known only to God and the individual concerned. Therefore I am quite rightly excluded from being apprised of that information. The demand for such an explanation is no different from asking me the day and hour when Christ will return. That information is hidden from me (quite rightly, of course!), and so, by the will of God, I am in no position to reveal what I don't know and cannot know.

But certainly we can deduce - as I have done from the Bible - that free will is involved.

Of course, Jesus affirmed this when He said: "You are not willing to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:40). Now to suggest that what Jesus meant is "you are not willing to come to me, because I am not willing that you should" is sheer blasphemy. If that is the cause, then you would think that the God of all righteousness would be honest enough to take responsibility for the rebellion of these people, instead of trying to make out that it was all their fault. And why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem? Did He want the inhabitants of that city to reject Him? In other words, was He shedding mere crocodile tears (perish the thought!)? If predestination is true, then He certainly was, and that, of course, is a thoroughly blasphemous idea.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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?

Christians down the ages have echoed the question "What must I do to be saved", and (through emphasising different bits of Scripture) come to different answers.

In contemplating the range of those answers, we can divide them into two categories. Those who think that there is something that each individual has to do in order to be saved, and those who think there is no such condition to be met.

What's confusing me is that it is those who think there is a condition, for whom the damnation of those who don't meet it is the flip side of the salvation of those who do. Whereas classical Calvinist predestination seems to line up with the universalists as saying there is no condition to be met, no deed to be done or not done.

My own belief would be that there is a condition, along the lines of "respond to the love of God".

If you're saying that too many Christians equate rejecting their view of who God is (and what He is like and what He wants of us) with rejecting the love of God, then yes there are too many, but probably not enough to form a majority.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas classical Calvinist predestination seems to line up with the universalists as saying there is no condition to be met, no deed to be done or not done.

I know next to nothing about classical Calvinism. But I was under the impression that their take on salvation does not change the requirement of good deeds, it just moves it from cause to effect. That is, it is not because you do good that you are saved, rather you are saved and hence you do good. Deeds are an expression of rather than condition for salvation. Nevertheless, in practice this means that good deeds remain a reliable indicator of salvation (correlation exists whichever way causation flows). If this is true, then that would effectively contradict your comment.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I know next to nothing about classical Calvinism. But I was under the impression that their take on salvation does not change the requirement of good deeds, it just moves it from cause to effect.

That's correct, hence various sayings around the theme "saved by faith alone, but not by faith that remains alone".

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
That's a funny question, given that you have cut away all of de Sales' scriptural references, except for one, which you nevertheless manage to ignore: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matt 23:2). For those who do wish to get the actual - very scriptural - argument of de Sales, rather than EE's mutilated version thereof, see here.

No, I don't think I was mutilating St Francis de Sales' version. He was using the Scribes and the Pharisees as an example of corrupt church leaders, to justify the Catholic Church being the True Church despite occasionally being led by rogues. Yes, there is one verse in Matthew 23, which indicates that the Scribes and the Pharisees had some kind of religious authority - verse 2, which you quote - but to lift that out of the whole context of the chapter seems somewhat reckless to me (and an act of 'mutilating' the witness of Scripture, to use your word).

It's clear that Jesus did not want people to use the corruption of the Scribes and the Pharisees as an excuse to disobey the law of God, and therefore, in very general terms, there would inevitably be some correspondence between the pronouncements and commandments of those religious leaders and God's will. If, for example, the Pharisees instructed the people to refrain from committing adultery, then they should do so, because, as it happens, that's what God says. But this is as far as it goes, because these religious leaders were rank hypocrites, who placed heavy burdens on people, who turned their proselytes into "sons of hell", who were guilty of the blood of the righteous, who were arrogant, exploitative, nit-picking and neglectful of the weightier matters of the Law, and who should not be looked to for any kind of spiritual direction or example. In fact, to submit to these leaders was to endanger one's own soul, hence the "son of hell" reference.

Likewise, if someone encounters religious leaders like this in their own church, they should not use that as an excuse to turn their back on God (and we know that many people do turn to atheism, for example, because of a bad experience thay have had in their church). However, they are entitled to give these leaders a wide berth. The implication of all this is that such people should find fellowship elsewhere. This therefore rather undermines St Francis de Sales' argument in favour of the Catholic Church being the "True Church". If he admits that such a gallery of devilish rogues could be in leadership in that church, then how can he require people to submit to that leadership? I would have thought that any godly teacher would understand why people want to seek fellowship elsewhere when faced with such a scenario.

I wholeheartedly agree that no church is perfect, but there is a difference between leaders beset by human weakness and frailty and those who are wilfully evil. "By their fruits you will know them" comes to mind. Yes, I know the context of that saying concerns false prophets, but isn't the Church supposed to be prophetic? We discern the false prophet by their fruit, and likewise the false company of prophets.

Of course, we could argue that those who are dissatisfied with the Church should seek to reform it from within. True. But what if the leadership is resistant to reform? Then schism is inevitable, and it is not the fault of the schismatics, but of those who forced their hand. In fact, one could argue that the institution that refuses to repent and submit to the will of God, thus forcing schism, is actually the breakaway body, because it has effectively broken away from the will of God, whereas the visibly separated body is actually the True Church operating within the continuity of the will of God.

Going back to St Francis de Sales' example: he claimed that the Scribes and the Pharisees were the leaders of the True Church of the day, but Christianity - and therefore by extension the Catholic Church - broke away from this "True Church"! Ironic therefore that he argues against schismatics.

It's clear therefore that his argument in support of the unique claim of the RCC is very weak indeed.

[ 14. November 2013, 21:45: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes, there is one verse in Matthew 23, which indicates that the Scribes and the Pharisees had some kind of religious authority - verse 2, which you quote - but to lift that out of the whole context of the chapter seems somewhat reckless to me (and an act of 'mutilating' the witness of Scripture, to use your word).

But equally, that verse is part of the context of the passage, absent an alternative interpretation it appears you are just ruling it out because you don't like it.

Not that I wouldn't have problems with Francis de Sales' argument (I would probably reverse the order in which he places them), but it appears to me that what he was trying to do was counter crypto-Donatistic attitudes in his own day.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
At the most jejune level, it's applicable to everyone but the universalists amongst us.

{Hands out convenient pamphlets on universalism.}

I grew up in a non-denom. fund. church. (Not the foaming-at-the-mouth kind.) Thinking about salvation was much as MT outlined. You were supposed to make an individual, conscious decision to "accept Jesus into your heart". (Discussions of that would sometimes refer to the voice that told Augustine that "God has no grandchildren".)

This also caused deep worry in kids who'd grown up in the church and couldn't point to a specific incident of choice. Were they really saved, or were they (all unknowingly) going to hell? I was lucky to have a specific experience when I was very young, and I did mean it at the time. But I said many "God, if I'm not already saved..." prayers over the years.

There was, however, the "sheep and goats" clause, for people who had never heard the gospel. (Counter to that: I read an anecdote about a missionary to Africa who was approached by a local resident. "Is it true that, if we'd never heard of the gospel, we wouldn't be judged against it and go to hell?" "Yes." "Then why in the world did you come???")

Kids' salvation also presented a problem, generally solved by an "age of responsibility". Thoughts about the age varied; but 12 was most common, based on both when Jesus went off on his own to debate at the Temple and also on Jewish coming-of-age traditions..

As to One True Church, Us vs Them, " 2, 4, 6, 8, God won't let YOU through the gate" theology and behavior: It's terrible. OTOH, it's what humans do: split into groups; worry about Them; emphasize differences from Them; define own rightness in terms of "we're scared, but we must be right, so They must be wrong, otherwise we aren't right and we'd have to be all scared again". Happens in religion, politics, music, etc.

It's about fear and power and safety. For me, universalism counteracts that. And lets me sleep nights.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
So, how do you explain the difference between the person who eagerly unwraps this gift and the person who casts it aside with a cursory, "no thank you"? Now please read what I said carefully before answering. How do you explain the difference between the one who accepts and the one who refuses the offer? I'm not just asking to the describe the difference, I'm asking you explain it. What, if any, qualitative difference exists between those two people both prior to and after the event of acceptance?
Well, firstly I will approach this question of the operation of human free will from a biblical point of view, and not from a point of view of your choosing.

We know that human free will exists. If that is not the case then Isaiah 5:1-7 (for example) makes no sense. The challenge of this passage was blatantly ignored on the Calvinism thread, so I will remind you of it here. God expected His vineyard to bring forth good grapes, and He resourced it to do so. The text is absolutely crystal clear, and there is no wriggle room for the predestinarian: both God's will and provision are affirmed - "I expected it to bring forth good grapes... what more could have been done to my vineyard that I have not done in it?" And given the severity of God's judgment on His rebellious vineyard, this passage cannot be dismissed as having nothing to say about salvation and condemnation.

Now this vineyard represents potentially two types of people:

1. Those who respond to God's provision and bring forth good grapes (please note that God's will is that ALL members of His vineyard should come into this category).

2. Those, who receiving the same provision from God, rebel against Him and bring forth wild grapes.

Now clearly the distinction between these two groups of people has not been caused or willed by God. So where is the source of the distinction? It is in man. And it is not human weakness, or fate, or original sin, or a totally depraved human nature which determine a response, because God has overruled all of that with His provision of grace.

Therefore there is only one factor that explains this distinction:

free will.

The vineyard analogy to which you refer is about the potential fruitfulness of God's rescued people, the New Testament corollary of which is the church (Galatians 6:16). It is not a reference to some imagined neutral state from which an undifferentiated mass of humanity can choose either barrenness (rebellion) or fruitfulness (salvation) by dint free will.

The passage you cite is about God's expectations of the people whom he has already recused from slavery in Egypt. Biblically theologically the exodus from Egypt prefigures redemption from sin though Christ. Therefore, the NT Christological equivalent of this passage is that it is a reference to the fruitfulness of those whom God has recused from slavery to sin, namely the elect.

Hence the words of Jesus in John 15:16

quote:
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit – fruit that will last – and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

speak quite clearly of the particularity of God's vineyard not its universality, contra your reading.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, I don't think I was mutilating St Francis de Sales' version. He was using the Scribes and the Pharisees as an example of corrupt church leaders, to justify the Catholic Church being the True Church despite occasionally being led by rogues. Yes, there is one verse in Matthew 23, which indicates that the Scribes and the Pharisees had some kind of religious authority - verse 2, which you quote - but to lift that out of the whole context of the chapter seems somewhat reckless to me (and an act of 'mutilating' the witness of Scripture, to use your word).

Not only did you misrepresent de Sales before, you continue doing so. Having been called on cutting out many scriptural references from his argument - and ignoring one in spite of not having deleted it - you now merely admit that de Sales uses one verse, the one quoted by me. But he wasn't just using one, but many. For example, he mentions St Paul's statement in Acts 20:30, he discusses the case of the apostle Judas (Acts 1:17), he mentions the case of the perverse Corinthian (1 Cor 5), etc. You can of course attack de Sales' use of scripture, but so far you are nowhere near a fair engagement with his writings. Not that I really know why we are even discussing this, it seems rather remote from the OP.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Likewise, if someone encounters religious leaders like this in their own church, they should not use that as an excuse to turn their back on God (and we know that many people do turn to atheism, for example, because of a bad experience thay have had in their church). However, they are entitled to give these leaders a wide berth. The implication of all this is that such people should find fellowship elsewhere. This therefore rather undermines St Francis de Sales' argument in favour of the Catholic Church being the "True Church". If he admits that such a gallery of devilish rogues could be in leadership in that church, then how can he require people to submit to that leadership? I would have thought that any godly teacher would understand why people want to seek fellowship elsewhere when faced with such a scenario.

So where would that elsewhere be that knows not of devilish rogues in leadership positions? I have never heard of such a perfect church, nor will there be one till the Second Coming. Your analysis is idealistic nonsense. If you run from the badness of men, you will end up cowering in a cave. And even then you will not have escaped it, for there is still one bad person around: you. de Sales deals in religious realities, not in religious pipe dreams. He reads the bible on how to deal with what is the case, not on what never will be. There is no place untouched by human corruption on earth, not even the Church Militant.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I wholeheartedly agree that no church is perfect, but there is a difference between leaders beset by human weakness and frailty and those who are wilfully evil.

Jesus however does not take the Pharisees to task for "wilful evil" primarily, but for hypocrisy, which typically is a case of "human weakness and frailty". (I follow your distinction there, without wanting to imply that hypocrisy is not evil. But it's not genocide...) Historically speaking the Pharisees were not a Stalinesque clique of evil tyrants. They were a Jewish sect with particularly stringent demands on its followers in the service of God, and some of its leaders did not practice what they preached. Jesus both condemns them for that and says that one should follow their commands.

Anyway, what is necessary here is simply discernment. If the pope tomorrow orders me to kill my family, I will refuse him to his face. The pope does not speak louder than the plain commandments of God. If the pope orders me to fast all Saturday and Sunday morning before mass, I will consider this imprudent and indeed an obstacle to the faith, and I will oppose this decision by the means appropriate to my state as lay person (my priest, my bishop and possibly the Vatican will hear about my dissatisfaction, and I may try to use the media to campaign against this). Nevertheless, I will try to follow this discipline while it is in place, since the pope does have the authority to impose it on me and it is not clearly contrary to the commandments of God. I will even do so if I hear that the pope himself is having three meals on Saturday, for his hypocrisy does not justify my disobedience. Two wrongs do not make a right. Finally, if the pope demands that I pray a "Hail Mary" before mass, then I will do so without further ado. This is a reasonable demand from the rightful religious authority, and nothing but simple obedience can be the answer for a person of faith.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, we could argue that those who are dissatisfied with the Church should seek to reform it from within. True. But what if the leadership is resistant to reform? Then schism is inevitable, and it is not the fault of the schismatics, but of those who forced their hand.

My key point was not a moral evaluation of who is at fault. My key point was that schism is not an available means for establishing a second valid Church. Indeed, there is no such means available to humanity. Only God Himself could establish a second Church. We hence are stuck with what God has established, and we must make that work. All else, however wonderful and morally superior, is ultimately religious delusion. Where a schism occurs, one side will be the one Church, the other side will not be. We must decide which side we believe has the better claim. And this decision is not straightforward. For neither is it clear that our own judgements are valid, nor is it true that Church authority arises simply from being "more moral" than the other (hence this authority potentially could flow to the "less moral" side in a particular schism). For example, I'm convinced that Protestantism can be rejected wholesale simply because I believe that their ecclesiology cannot correspond to scripture or tradition. That is not really a moral argument, and it may well have been the case that Protestants opposing the one Church were morally superior on occasion. (To be clear, I do not wish to start an argument about ecclesiology. My point was that there is more to this than looking at who appears most saintly.)

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Going back to St Francis de Sales' example: he claimed that the Scribes and the Pharisees were the leaders of the True Church of the day, but Christianity - and therefore by extension the Catholic Church - broke away from this "True Church"! Ironic therefore that he argues against schismatics.

The problem of the Scribes and Pharisees was that they did not recognise proper authority, and were not obedient to it. This happens to be exactly what Jesus warns the ordinary Jews about, one level in the hierarchy down. For reference, this is the analogy (and it is only an analogy, not a straight continuation):

code:

 God (Jesus)                 God (Holy Spirit)
 |        /'\                   |        /'\
command    |                   command    |
 |       obey                   |       obey
\./        |                   \./        |     
Scribes/Pharisees              bishops/pope
 |        /'\                   |        /'\
command    |                   command    |
 |       obey                   |       obey
\./        |                   \./        |    
ordinary Jews                 Catholic laity

So the equivalent of the Pharisees being condemned by Christ would be RC bishops / popes that do not follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Have there been and are there such RC bishops / popes? Yes, of course. Are all RC bishops / popes like that? No, and neither were all Pharisees disobedient to God in Jesus' time. Are the "disobedience statistics" less bad in the RC hierarchy than among the Pharisees back then? One would hope so. Do their failures mean that one can simply ignore their authority? No, this was not the case even for the Pharisees, according to Jesus, much less so for the RC hierarchy.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
So, how do you explain the difference between the person who eagerly unwraps this gift and the person who casts it aside with a cursory, "no thank you"? Now please read what I said carefully before answering. How do you explain the difference between the one who accepts and the one who refuses the offer? I'm not just asking to the describe the difference, I'm asking you explain it. What, if any, qualitative difference exists between those two people both prior to and after the event of acceptance?
Well, firstly I will approach this question of the operation of human free will from a biblical point of view, and not from a point of view of your choosing.

We know that human free will exists. If that is not the case then Isaiah 5:1-7 (for example) makes no sense. The challenge of this passage was blatantly ignored on the Calvinism thread, so I will remind you of it here.

I answered you upthread. My guess is that you've overlooked my reply, hence this gentle nudge. I think my answer is a good one. The vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7 is the particular nation that God has rescued from slavery. The Isaiah passage isn't about the redemption of enslaved nation, it's about the sanctification of a redeemed nation. The same is true of the church which, according to apostolic teaching (1 Peter 2:9) is

quote:
"a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

Note the language of election in that passage!?

[ 16. November 2013, 12:41: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

daronmedway -

I haven't got much time at the moment to give a longer response, but I will say that your interpretation of Isaiah 5:1-7 makes a complete mockery of God's grace and character. It is saying that His grace is irresistible when directed towards unbelievers, but believers can completely and utterly resist it, to the point where God burns them, breaks them, tramples them down, lays them waste, to the point at which they bring forth only briers and thorns and therefore become completely fruitless (see the judgment described in Isaiah 5:5-6).

If this only refers to those who are 'saved', then why does God say of them that He looked for justice, but only found oppression? Why did they utterly resist God's work in them, and turned all the goodness of God to evil (producing wild grapes from the provision of God's goodness)?

If you really think this is only a description of people who are saved and eternally secure, and who are merely being sanctified, then salvation and sanctification are words that mean absolutely nothing at all in your way of thinking.

Furthermore, what do you understand by Jesus' sayings: "By their fruits you will know them" and "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit"?

Think about it, please.

[ 16. November 2013, 16:54: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
it is not because you do good that you are saved, rather you are saved and hence you do good. Deeds are an expression of rather than condition for salvation. Nevertheless, in practice this means that good deeds remain a reliable indicator of salvation (correlation exists whichever way causation flows).

OK. The essential act - the acceptance, the saying Yes to God - is an interior act, of which you are inferring the presence or absence by the presence or absence of exterior deeds (of virtue, or charity, or worship) and you're claiming that this inference is reliable ? Or saying that you think Calvinists think it's reliable ?

I would be very cautious about such inference. Seems to me that there is no particular exterior deed which necessarily follows from the act of saying Yes to God. The saved soul may join any worshipping community, say any prayer, practice any rite of worship, pursue any virtue, work for any good cause, etc without casting any doubt on the sincerity of their Yes thereby.

Inferring the damnation of those who don't express their religious impulse in the particular ways that a particular community recognises as legitimate is perhaps the error being highlighted here ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
daronmedway -

I haven't got much time at the moment to give a longer response, but I will say that your interpretation of Isaiah 5:1-7 makes a complete mockery of God's grace and character. It is saying that His grace is irresistible when directed towards unbelievers, but believers can completely and utterly resist it, to the point where God burns them, breaks them, tramples them down, lays them waste, to the point at which they bring forth only briers and thorns and therefore become completely fruitless (see the judgment described in Isaiah 5:5-6).

If this only refers to those who are 'saved', then why does God say of them that He looked for justice, but only found oppression? Why did they utterly resist God's work in them, and turned all the goodness of God to evil (producing wild grapes from the provision of God's goodness)?

If you really think this is only a description of people who are saved and eternally secure, and who are merely being sanctified, then salvation and sanctification are words that mean absolutely nothing at all in your way of thinking.

Furthermore, what do you understand by Jesus' sayings: "By their fruits you will know them" and "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit"?

Think about it, please.

The passage you are citing is typological and prophetic, not doctrinal. If you ignore the redemptive typology of the Exodus, you miss an entire aspect of the biblical meta-narrative.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or saying that you think Calvinists think it's reliable ?

I have no particular intention to think through, much less defend, Calvinist positions.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The saved soul may join any worshipping community, say any prayer, practice any rite of worship, pursue any virtue, work for any good cause, etc without casting any doubt on the sincerity of their Yes thereby.

Bullshit. And no, I do not need to argue that. You assert, I assert back.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Inferring the damnation of those who don't express their religious impulse in the particular ways that a particular community recognises as legitimate is perhaps the error being highlighted here ?

I do not know, or care, what Calvinists claim about the damnation of non-Calvinists. But if you wish to highlight error, then perhaps you should start supplying evidence and argument?

Posted by Andromeda (# 11304) on :

I sympathize with the OP and I recognize the attitude described in the evangelical and charismatic circles I used to (and sometimes still do) move in.

It was always them and us, the saved and the unsaved, those out there and us in here. The saved were 'christians like us' (evangelical rather than charismatic) but there was a worrying question mark over the salvation of non-evangelical christians, and of whole denominations such as Catholics.

I perhaps paint it too black and white, not everyone held such black and white views, but the attitude described by EE seemed to be the norm and not the exception.

[ 16. November 2013, 23:17: Message edited by: Andromeda ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The saved soul may join any worshipping community, say any prayer, practice any rite of worship, pursue any virtue, work for any good cause, etc without casting any doubt on the sincerity of their Yes thereby.
Bullshit. And no, I do not need to argue that. You assert, I assert back...

...perhaps you should start supplying evidence and argument?

That's not assertion, that's descending to the level of playground taunts.

Hard to argue when you don't give any clue as to where exactly you disagree. Or even whether there's a genuine difference or whether I've just said it badly. Again.

Perhaps the place to start would be a hypothetical pious Muslim and pious Hindu, responding to the grace of God as best they can within their own cultural traditions and own personalities, but having little in common in terms of either liturgy or the particular charitable causes that they donate time and money to, or the individuals that they seek to treat with greater kindness ?

Many the gifts, many the works...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Russ mate, [Overused]

to you too. I should do the same for IngoB but he'd know I didn't mean it.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
The passage you are citing is typological and prophetic, not doctrinal. If you ignore the redemptive typology of the Exodus, you miss an entire aspect of the biblical meta-narrative.

Nice try, but that answer just will not do. You are basically claiming that we can learn nothing about the nature and ways of God from Isaiah 5:1-7. If that is the case, then what can we learn about God from any passage of Scripture that involves metaphor? We may as well ignore all the parables of Jesus, if that is the case.

In fact, it makes not a scrap of difference how we view this passage from a literary perspective, because it is prophecy - i.e. God speaking, and He is speaking about His relationship with Israel, who were in rebellion against Him. Therefore that word has moral and doctrinal content, because any revelation from God which contains concepts about God and His relationship to people is necessarily doctrinal. If that is not so, then we may as well call God a liar, or, at the very least, someone who says things that are of no more importance than gibberish.

Perhaps you would like to compare Isaiah 5:1-7 to John 15:1-8. In Isaiah, God judges His vineyard, which fails to bring forth good fruit, by ensuring that it is not pruned. Compare that with John 15:2, which confirms that each branch of the vine which bears fruit is pruned so that it may bear more fruit. Therefore the unpruned branches are fruitless, and Jesus explained that they are fruitless because they do not abide in Him. If they did abide in Him, they would bear much fruit. And we know what happens to the branches which fail to bear fruit: they are withered and then gathered together and burned in the fire. Hardly a description of saints being sanctified!!!

It is clear therefore, from the testimony of the Word of God, as we compare scripture with scripture, that Isaiah 5:1-7 is not a description of people who are merely being sanctified.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

It is a description of Israel, the people who have been redeemed from slavery. When it comes to reading scripture Christologically, what is true of redeemed Israel historically and nationally, is true of the church spiritually.

The fact that the nation of Israel was redeemed from slavery in Egypt but didn't bear fruit points forward to the greater redemption from sin which is necessary through Christ. The whole point of the failure of redeemed Israel to beat fruit is to pave the way for the prophets to proclaim a better covenant and an Israel of God (the universal church) in which true sanctification is not only made possible but is guaranteed through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and Christ's own promise of fruitfulness. Israel's failure to bear fruit has precisely nothing to do with "free will" and precisely everything to do with the effectual calling and grace of God upon his New Covenant people.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
Israel's failure to bear fruit has precisely nothing to do with "free will" and precisely everything to do with the effectual calling and grace of God upon his New Covenant people.

It is absolutely nonsensical to say that Isaiah 5:1-7 has nothing to do with free will.

Why do you think the vineyard brought forth wild grapes, when God expected it and resourced it to bring forth good grapes?

Was it due to the will of God? Or the will of man?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I expect my children to obey me but I also know there will be occasions when they won't. God wasn't surprised by Israel's failure.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
Israel's failure to bear fruit has precisely nothing to do with "free will" and precisely everything to do with the effectual calling and grace of God upon his New Covenant people.
It is absolutely nonsensical to say that Isaiah 5:1-7 has nothing to do with free will.

Why do you think the vineyard brought forth wild grapes, when God expected it and resourced it to bring forth good grapes?

Was it due to the will of God? Or the will of man?

The answer is that God had removed Israel from Egypt but he had not yet removed Egypt from Israel. There was yet more for God to do in order to make it possible for Israel to bear fruit. The mere command is not enough, Israel must be empowered by God to obey. The answer is Christ the. Messiah, not "must try harder".

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
The answer is Christ the. Messiah, not "must try harder".

Who said anything about "must try harder"?? [Confused]

By the way... concerning your children: I assume you don't destroy them when they disobey you? Just askin'...

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
The answer is Christ the. Messiah, not "must try harder".
Who said anything about "must try harder"??

By the way... concerning your children: I assume you don't destroy them when they disobey you? Just askin'...

Reductio ad absurdum.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Indeed.

Exposing the absurd is what I do.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Must ... re... sist ...

Whilst I occasionally agree with you on certain issues, EE, the idea that you are any less absurd in some of your judgements and views than the rest of us does cause me a degree of amusement.

I hardly think you are in a position to take the line of least absurdity high-ground given your position on issues which others might find equally absurd.

Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent of course.

FWIW I think you've made some good points but you're in danger of undermining them by the tone you take at times and some kind of inveterate view you appear to have that taking a 'biblical approach' means to end up taking the same positions to those you take on things.

It ain't that simple ... as you well know.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent of course.

Of course, we all have our different takes on the Bible, but there is a limit to this. And I think that denying that free will is operative in the events described by Isaiah 5:1-7 is stepping over the line into absurdity.

OK. So it's my opinion. No one is under any obligation to agree with me. But it would be dishonest of me to say that Isaiah 5:1-7 can be explained within a predestinarian paradigm. As far as I am concerned, it cannot. I could lie and say that I believe it could. But do we really want to lie to one another, or should we not express our honest views, backed up (it is to be hoped) by something at least vaguely resembling a coherent argument?

If we cannot do this, then debate - and even discussion - is impossible.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Indeed.

Exposing the absurd is what I do.

Even if it involves fallacious reasoning? OK.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent of course.
Of course, we all have our different takes on the Bible, but there is a limit to this. And I think that denying that free will is operative in the events described by Isaiah 5:1-7 is stepping over the line into absurdity.

What's absurd is the idea that Isaiah 5:1-7 in any way refers to God's desire to see the undifferentiated mass of humanity being saved by dint of their so called free will or that those people can resist saving grace. The passage is about the apostasy of Old Covenant Israel, the people whom God has already redeemed from slavery in Egypt through no power of their own.

[ 19. November 2013, 14:56: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

daronmedway -

But Isaiah 5:1-7 is all about a particular group of people resisting God's grace. God expected them to bring forth good fruit, and resourced them to do so - in other words, He did all the work. They chose to resist the work of God, and as a result they brought forth oppression, as the passage states.

Perhaps you think that every member of Israel was personally saved, quite irrespective of their evil and rebellion. If you really think that people in out and out rebellion against God are saved, whereas certain other people - the non-elect - who do no worse, are not saved, then you have a view of salvation which means absolutely nothing. "Sinners shall not stand in the congregation of the righteous", as Psalm 1 says. You seem to think that thoroughly and wilfully and unrepentantly evil people can still be saved, simply on the basis of God's election.

Absurdity beyond comprehension.

But anyway... since God desires all people to be saved, as the Bible unequivocally states, then He will extend His saving grace to all. And if this grace is irresistible, then all will be saved. There is no way round this logic. The doctrine of irresistible grace therefore implies universalism.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What seems absurd - at least to me - is that you're debating wider issues such as how free-will/predestination as applied to mankind generally on the basis of a passage which - whatever one's views on the Arminian/Calvinism debate - is clearly referring to a particular set of people at a particular point in time.

You're trying to make a particular text bear more weight than it will hold.

The passages you're citing in Isaiah refer to a prophetic warning/challenge to Israel at that time - sure there are Messianic prophecies and undoubtedly much else going along in there at one and the same time - but I don't see them as being there to outline any particular 'take' on the issue of free-will and predestination and so on.

Sure, you can apply them that way if that's how your tradition works ... because it strikes me that that's how the pair of you - daronmedway and EE - are responding here.

Daronmedway's tradition inclines him to take a covenantal approach where he is almost honour-bound to look at these passages through a Reformed lens. EE doesn't like the apparent implications of that so he'll read them in a different way.

It strikes me that both of them might be missing the point somewhere along the line.

Sure, God made a covenant with Israel not because of anything special that they'd done but because he sovereignly decided that's what he was going to do to demonstrate his love to mankind.

Israel fell short of that and he called them on it.

Ultimately, he would bring forth the Messiah, his only begotten Son, through all of this and bring about all the wonders of the Incarnation.

Arguing the toss about the extent to which monergist and synergistic impulses come into play here seems to me to be missing the point. We're not told how it all works out. We'll have to wait and see, as daronmedway has reminded us on the other thread - it'll all be revealed once we get behind stage and see the stage-machinery.

In the meantime, I don't see any of us fathoming it out. All we can do is go with whatever convictions we have and whatever point of view we arrive at given the frame of reference and traditions we operate from.

In daronmedway's case it's a Reformed one, a Calvinistic one. Others don't share that tradition or that way of approaching the issue. One day we'll see how it all hangs together but until then we've only got our faith and our theology to go on.

I can live with a certain amount of ambiguity here - and even absurdity to a certain extent.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

We only need to find ONE instance of people resisting God's grace to discover that God's grace is resistible. So my inductive approach is perfectly valid.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes ... except we don't know whether people resist God's grace ultimately or whether eventually it prevails ...

Anyhow, it's all speculation. Angels dancing on a pin-head.

It ain't really an issue unless you want to make it an issue.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

If God is no different from a West African juju priest, who selects new born babies to be roasted in the fire (yes, it happens!), then he is not worthy of the love and trust of any sane person. The God of predestination is actually worse than the juju priest, because at least in the latter's rituals, the babies lose consciousness, unlike in God's fire.

If the crucial subject of God's character is mere speculation - on a par with "angels dancing on a pinhead" - then all ideas are mere speculation. Therefore we should all stop thinking about anything. Personally, I don't think that is what God intended when he created the human brain.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, of course God isn't like Molech or some kind of ju-ju priest and that's why, like you, I reject the more mechanistic extremes of certain forms of Calvinism - the hyper-Calvinist end of the spectrum.

What I'm saying is that speculation about how freewill/predestination works out in practice is akin to the angels dancing on a pin thing because none of us - whatever our tradition or theological position - is going to be able to figure that one out.

The whole thing is a mystery and a conundrum. I'm happy to leave it that way.

That doesn't mean I'm disengaging my brain.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We only need to find ONE instance of people resisting God's grace to discover that God's grace is resistible. So my inductive approach is perfectly valid.

Not so. All you can prove by this form of inferential reasoning is that there are occasions when God allows people to resist his grace, that grace is resistible until such time as it is not. What you cannot prove is that the texts which speak of sovereign irresistible grace aren't true or do not mean what they say. They simply show that at some point grace becomes irresistible. My way of reading scripture allows me the submit to both aspects of reality, yours doesn't.

[ 19. November 2013, 17:48: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Irresistible grace doesn't mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit can't be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit, whenever he chooses, can overcome that resistance and make his influence irresistible.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
We only need to find ONE instance of people resisting God's grace to discover that God's grace is resistible. So my inductive approach is perfectly valid.
Not so. All you can prove by this form of inferential reasoning is that there are occasions when God allows people to resist his grace, that grace is resistible until such time as it is not. What you cannot prove is that the texts which speak of sovereign irresistible grace aren't true or do not mean what they say. They simply show that at some point grace becomes irresistible. My way of reading scripture allows me the submit to both aspects of reality, yours doesn't.

Actually my reasoning is sound, because the presupposition behind it is valid, namely, the consistency of God's nature. Your view of God makes a mockery of his grief at those who rebel against him, because he could have made his grace irresistible to them. For example, if you are right, then Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem was completely pointless, considering that he knew that he could save all those people by extending irresistible rather than resistible grace to them. This makes his tears look totally insincere. Likewise, God could have saved all those who perished in the flood, instead of misleading us with words such as "my Spirit shall not strive with man forever", which implies the operation of free will to resist the convicting work of the Spirit.

But anyway, I guess I could live with the idea that God predestines some to salvation and offers resistible grace to everyone else. It still makes God a blatant respecter of persons, but it's tolerable, because at least every person has an opportunity to be saved. What is completely ruled out by the entire testimony of Scripture is the idea that God refuses to extend any grace at all to some people, knowing that there is absolutely no way any of them - from conception onwards - could escape eventual eternal torture in hell.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes, and that is the natural corollary of a certain brand of hyper-Calvinism.

Daronmedway won't like me saying this, and it's not meant as a dig or a personal criticism of him nor of Reformed folk in general, but the issue I have with Calvinism - on the populist level - is that it tends to bend the scriptures to fit in with its particular schema rather than the other way round.

For every proof-text they can cite about sovereign and irresistible grace (as popularly understood, and I agree the position is more nuanced than might first appear) there's an equally weighty one which could be used to suggest otherwise.

The over-arching paradigm, of course, as EE has correctly identified, is love. I certainly can't see how a loving deity could create people who were eternally destined for hell-fire irrespective of any other factor that might be brought to bear.

If one believes that then the only way to resolve or square it with what we know of the character of God as revealed in scripture is to engage in sophistry - ie:

'Ah well, you're using human conceptions of justice ... 'Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?' ... etc etc ... we all know how it goes.

Sure, Calvin sometimes rings true and the motivation between Calvinism is a sound one, I believe ... but as with a lot of Western Scholastic and late medieval neo-Platonic stuff (and that's what it is, effectively), it goes too far.

In seeking to elide the late medieval RC system of works and penances and masses for the dead and so on - the 'industrialisation of penance' as Rowan Williams once tellingly described it - they emphasised grace working through faith - or 'faith working through love' - but in so doing entered into all manner of knotty speculations about the actual mechanics of it all.

And here's where the problem lies, it seems to me. Taken to the extreme it constructs a Mecanno-style edifice that finds scriptural support in some places or not in others. On those places where scriptural support becomes thin they shore it all up with sophistry and speculations of their own.

They don't like it when people point that out to them, but it's effectively what they do. Whilst all the time claiming to have scripture on their side.

Arminians do the same thing in reverse.

Both systems are incomplete and provisional.

That's why I don't think speculation about these things - interesting though it might be - actually gets us very far down the road. You can find grace in all systems and across all traditions. The wind bloweth where it listeth.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0