|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Will God allow anyone to go to hell?
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Humans worldwide are in 90% agreement as to what constitutes good and bad behavior. The choices that build heaven in your heart are the same ones that make you a good student, a productive employeee, a decent citizen, spouse and friend.
...
If you are a good citizen of your country, a good spouse, friend, family member, employee or employer - and if in your heart you actually mean to be this way - you will also be a good citizen of heaven.
I have been reading this thread with great interest - thanks to all who have posted.
Hypothetically speaking of course...
Suppose a person was one of those 90% of humans who knows the difference between good and bad behaviour. And suppose that person does make a consistent effort (nobody's perfect) to try to be a good citizen of this world for no other reason than for the good of him/herself and others. And suppose that this morning someone tried to give that person a leaflet with the word "Christian" in big print on it, and s/he said, "No thank you."
What say ye? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Suppose a person was one of those 90% of humans who knows the difference between good and bad behaviour. And suppose that person does make a consistent effort (nobody's perfect) to try to be a good citizen of this world for no other reason than for the good of him/herself and others. And suppose that this morning someone tried to give that person a leaflet with the word "Christian" in big print on it, and s/he said, "No thank you."
I don't know what others would say, and I doubt others will agree with me on this. But I would say that there are probably lots of reasons why someone like that might have good reasons to reject the pamphlet. It does not necessarily mean that s/he will reject the God of heaven in the next life.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jesusfreakgal
Apprentice
# 10883
|
Posted
Personally there is one significant problem I have with the idea of everyone going to heaven. That to me means that Christianity (but not Christ) is in a sense, pointless. What I mean here is this: if everyone goes to heaven, it means that it does not matter who they are, what they have done, or what they have believed. Evangalism and witnessing therefore are pointless if anything about a person's existsnce does not matter. Why witness to someone who is going to heaven anyway? Sure that person might end up living a better life, but if they are going to get the greatest reward in the end anyway, why bother doing anything for them and leave the person alone?
JFG
--------------------
JFG
Posts: 47 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
...why should a benevolent God permit absolute free will, even unto damnation (or The Other Place, or whatever?) I given my children sufficient autonomy that they can, e.g., fall over and hurt themselves in the garden, but I don't let them play in the traffic. Surely there has to come a point when God says ``OK, enough is enough, stop pissing about and get into Heaven with everybody else'' ?
Excellent point, CC. Spending eternity either in conscious torment or simply in frustrating unhappiness, whatever your "hell" is, are both "too far" IMO.
You allow a person to get hurt so they learn. Allowing them to hurt forever is counter-productive and I don't believe God works that way.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Thing is, we've got no basis for believing consciousness continues after death.
And yet, it must be a very large percentage of people on earth who do. And who seemingly make decisions based on that very belief.
quote:
Perhaps we become, or have the potential to become, an eternal being. But saying it's like consciousness, even by analogy, is I think bound to be misleading. It implies we can know what we can't.
Been to a church lately? People are in the business of implying that we know what we can't. It's practically second nature. I agree with you that we can't know, but I'm saying that people make decisions on what they think they know. And then the belief goes that these decisions then have an effect on what happens (if anything) after death.
quote:
We have no way of knowing this. I can't imagine a God who 'allows us to receive results' based on any choice we've made, only one who is creating the universe in such a way that who we become might not be lost. I suspect this depends on all the influences that determine our values at death, the best indicator of which I'd have thought will be what's important to us in this life.
And what becomes important to us in this life does so because... of the factors that God places in our lives? Or because of the way he made us? Or because of the choices we've made, which our dependent on our environments and our nature? It's a circle, in a lot of ways.
quote:
I don't see there can be any God-given gold standard against which we can measure ourselves for fitness for eternity. But if who we've become at death would like it there, I can imagine a God kind of welcome, a 'glad you could make it', from the creator.
I have to believe that God is a little more interested in our eternal destiny than the level you suggest here. "Glad you could make it" is hardly what the Prodigal Son's dad called out on the road.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jesusfreakgal:
I am not sure if anyone mentioned this, but IMO Matthew 7:21-23 say to me quite clearly that not everyone is going to get into heaven. The verses say: "21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...
It's a common misunderstanding, IMO, to mistake Heaven (the place good people go when they die) with "The Kingdom of Heaven" (the spiritual world made available to us while we live... the Kingdom of God here on earth).
Stick around long enough and you'll realize that people here tend to assert that "Nothing in the Bible is clearly said." ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Welcome aboard, JFG!
quote:
Originally posted by jesusfreakgal:
Personally there is one significant problem I have with the idea of everyone going to heaven. That to me means that Christianity (but not Christ) is in a sense, pointless. What I mean here is this: if everyone goes to heaven, it means that it does not matter who they are, what they have done, or what they have believed. Evangalism and witnessing therefore are pointless if anything about a person's existsnce does not matter. Why witness to someone who is going to heaven anyway? Sure that person might end up living a better life, but if they are going to get the greatest reward in the end anyway, why bother doing anything for them and leave the person alone?
JFG
Why not leave them alone then? Or better yet, why not simply love them? Wouldn't that be good enough... in any case?
I think you're quite right about this, and I don't see it as a problem with universalism as much as it may be an asset...
I don't particularly like Christianity. But that's me.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think you're quite right about this
Only in fluffy-bunny universalism. Spiritual growth in this world typically seems to require significant effort and/or suffering - and before I get stomped on from certain quarters, I'm not suggesting works-based salvation but rather providential action through temporal events, and ducking the question of our cooperation.
A non-fluffy-bunny universalist might use the prospect of a fifteen billion year sojourn in purgatory as just as effective a stick as the hell and damnation preacher, it seems to me.
However, even a fluffy-bunny universalist only has to open his eyes and look at the mess that human sin makes of the lives of people here and now, to feel a strong desire to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Postponing your baptism/repentance until your last breath might get you through the pearly gates but it doesn't do much for the people left behind, and the words of one St John regarding love and commandments spring to mind.
Sure, eternal hellfire is a good motivator, but the implication that nobody has a reason to desire the kingdom of heaven in this life, for the benefit of those of us living it, is an unfounded one.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I agree with you that we can't know, but I'm saying that people make decisions on what they think they know. And then the belief goes that these decisions then have an effect on what happens (if anything) after death.
All the more reason for church to rebuild it's theology on the basis of what we can reasonably assume about God ie. that if God exists, he's totally consistent and committed to our continued existence and freedom to choose. Unconditional acceptance.
Of course that does mean we have to take responsibility for our lives, which I guess is where the real attraction in an interventionist God lies. Someone to offload that responsibility to. But the judgement thing, heaven or hell, I think that has to be about power and control on the part of historical religion.
quote:
I have to believe that God is a little more interested in our eternal destiny than the level you suggest here. "Glad you could make it" is hardly what the Prodigal Son's dad called out on the road.
I think it comes down to what we choose as the basis for our theology. One that makes us feel good about God or one that fits what we know about creation. Most of us want both. Traditional Christianity sacrifices the latter for the former.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
One that makes us feel good about God or one that fits what we know about creation. Most of us want both. Traditional Christianity sacrifices the latter for the former.
Okay, I'll bite. How so, Dave?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
By relying on historical events, and theories based on them, that are inconsistent with what we know of the natural universe. This requires acceptance of God having done supernatural stuff in the past, which means he might do (and be doing) so again. So the physical universe can no longer be relied on as a consistent baseline for thinking about God.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
By relying on historical events, and theories based on them, that are inconsistent with what we know of the natural universe.
Inconsistent how? Not reproducible in the lab?
quote:
This requires acceptance of God having done supernatural stuff in the past, which means he might do (and be doing) so again. So the physical universe can no longer be relied on as a consistent baseline for thinking about God.
No, it just means that natural theology is not the sum total of possible theology.
I believe your own theory is not entirely deist, so you're saying that the interaction of Creator and creation produces an outcome that is different from what would happen if Creator had initiated creation and then let things run their course.
It seems to me that we just differ over the nature of that interaction, so I don't understand how your claim if true when applied to Christianity doesn't decapitate any other theism just as quickly.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe your own theory is not entirely deist, so you're saying that the interaction of Creator and creation produces an outcome that is different from what would happen if Creator had initiated creation and then let things run their course.
I limit that interaction to the individual relationship we have with God by virtue of our humanity. It's precisely because we have no means of knowing (as in observably or logically verifiable) whether God has directly intervened that I don't see we can usefully claim that any perception we might have of it is 'truth from God'.
I think human self-awareness, this characteristic that appears to make us unique, provides supporting evidence for something like this going on, but as an extra-natural part of creation, not something that undermines it.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Yet you believe in a loving Creator, Dave. I don't understand how this is not a revelation revealed in some way by or through the interaction between him and his creation.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
I wouldn't say loving. Absolutely consistent and selflessly committed to this creation, yes, that appears to be verifiably so. The fact that my personal experience allows me, for example, to believe prayer changes things that are otherwise beyond my control is not. That's my faith, my personal extension to what we can all know that I sometimes choose to rely on.
Neither I nor religion has any basis for saying my personal faith is truth because, as enough threads here show, it's not the same for everyone. But verifiable stuff about the natural universe is.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Neither I nor religion has any basis for saying my personal faith is truth because, as enough threads here show, it's not the same for everyone. But verifiable stuff about the natural universe is.
I kind of feel we've been around this before, but I guess I didn't understand your view last time. I'm not having a dig at you, honest; I'd just like to understand better what you're saying.
The problem I have with the above is with the word `verifiable'. Last time I asked you about this, you said (if I've remembered correctly) that you intended it to mean `verifiable in the Positivist sense'; that is verifiable by direct observation.
But there are two things I don't get here (sorry if I'm being dim):
1. Given that you can't observe everything yourself, how reliable do other people's accounts have to be for you to add them to your store of knowledge? First hand tellings from a person you trust implicitly? Second hand tellings from a person you mostly trust? Textbooks? The Gospels? In short, where do you draw the line between reliable and unreliable accounts, and why?
2. How is any property of God, or even the existence of God, verifiable by direct observation?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Given that you can't observe everything yourself, how reliable do other people's accounts have to be for you to add them to your store of knowledge?
I'd ask is it reasonable to believe, should some account need verifying, that someone with sufficient time and resources could observe or demonstrate what is being claimed. I don't think anything else can or should be equated to this kind of knowledge, because it will have to rely on interpretation by a human mind.
Stunning as our minds are, they do not and cannot produce consistent results, at least not knowledge on which we can rely with the same degree of certainty as we can on observation of our shared reality.
quote:
How is any property of God, or even the existence of God, verifiable by direct observation?
I don't think it is. It's a judgement call whether or not we are being created. If, as I do, we decide it seems a better explanation than the alternative, that's faith. It's what follows from that choice, our theories of God and creation, that need to be consistent with what we can know. The better the consistency with the physcical universe and my experience of it, the more I will perhaps feel able to rely on what the theory suggests might be true, even though I can't be sure.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's a judgement call whether or not we are being created. If, as I do, we decide it seems a better explanation than the alternative, that's faith. It's what follows from that choice, our theories of God and creation, that need to be consistent with what we can know.
I like this way of putting it. There are a number of alternative explanations and we decide which is the better one.
After that, I agree, we look for theories that are consistent with what can be known.
The would include, I guess, theories about what can be known.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'd ask is it reasonable to believe, should some account need verifying, that someone with sufficient time and resources could observe or demonstrate what is being claimed. I don't think anything else can or should be equated to this kind of knowledge, because it will have to rely on interpretation by a human mind.
I guess my problem with this is that almost nothing I assume to be true is verifiable in the sense you mean. I can't verify that my wife loves me, although she says she does. I can't verify that my employers will finally give me the pay rise they promised two years ago, but I'm sufficiently sure they will that I haven't looked for another job. I can't verify that I will live until retirement age, although I still save money in case I do. I can't verify that it's wrong to hurt somebody, or that wealthy people should pay higher taxes, or that sometimes it is right to use force in self-defence, and so on.
The fact is that most of the consequential decisions I make in life are not based on information that is amenable to strict verification.
Now, you talk about religious truths being consistent with our observations of the natural world, and in that I would agree wholeheartedly. I Christianity requires you to believe that grass is pink, then Christianity is mistaken. But that's a way different criterion that insisting on strict verificationism, isn't it?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
we look for theories that are consistent with what can be known. The would include, I guess, theories about what can be known.
For me I think this would be circular. I've assumed 'what can be known' means what's logically or observably verifiable. In my thinking I've made it a matter of language, of definition of terms, rather than one of epistemology.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
you talk about religious truths being consistent with our observations of the natural world, and in that I would agree wholeheartedly. I Christianity requires you to believe that grass is pink, then Christianity is mistaken. But that's a way different criterion that insisting on strict verificationism, isn't it?
For our personal use, I think we all function as if we know things that, by my strict definition, we don't. As your examples illustrate. For practical purposes our minds have developed ultra-sophisticated strategies for efficiently pulling together information from memory, combining whatever confidence factors we've attach to each item, then feeding a result into our conscious thinking as part of an intuitive personal knowledge base. It's very fast, but it doesn't need to be and often isn't particularly accurate.
I only really want strict verification for the axioms on which I base my theory of God. I want to be able use this theory like knowledge, to derive from it a concept of God to include in my thinking. If I'm to have any confidence in this, I have to believe it is at least grounded in our shared reality. Only then is it worth putting effort into sound reasoning and working for consistency.
What traditional Christianity does in essence is base its theories, its theology, on what people have historically said or decided God has told them. Then it says 'we have 100% confidence this is what God is like'. I don't see it.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I've assumed 'what can be known' means what's logically or observably verifiable. In my thinking I've made it a matter of language, of definition of terms, rather than one of epistemology.
Not sure that really frees you from epistemology. You still need a scheme for recognizing what one means by observably verifiable, which puts you right back into the question of what constitutes valid knowledge.
quote:
I only really want strict verification for the axioms on which I base my theory of God.
Aren't axioms by definition those properties assumed that are not subject to proof? e.g. you can't prove Euclid's 5th Postulate. Isn't an axiom precisely a proposition that is taken as a self-evident truth for the basis of reasoning?
I don't see the Christian axioms that you quote [the bits about basing knowledge of God on what previous people have stated/observed] as being inconsistent with the observable world. In that sense, they make as good a set of axioms as any other.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Not sure that really frees you from epistemology. You still need a scheme for recognizing what one means by observably verifiable, which puts you right back into the question of what constitutes valid knowledge.
Observably or logically verifiable is not sufficiently self-evident for most purposes?
quote:
Isn't an axiom precisely a proposition that is taken as a self-evident truth for the basis of reasoning?
That's my understanding. So if I want my reasoning to result in a theory based in shared reality, my axioms must be grounded in reality too.
quote:
I don't see the Christian axioms that you quote [the bits about basing knowledge of God on what previous people have stated/observed] as being inconsistent with the observable world. In that sense, they make as good a set of axioms as any other.
True. As long as you're not bothered about Christian theology having a necessary connection to the observable world.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Suppose a person was one of those 90% of humans who knows the difference between good and bad behaviour. And suppose that person does make a consistent effort (nobody's perfect) to try to be a good citizen of this world for no other reason than for the good of him/herself and others. And suppose that this morning someone tried to give that person a leaflet with the word "Christian" in big print on it, and s/he said, "No thank you."
What say ye? OliviaG
All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans whateveritwas) Her not beign perfect is because in her sinning, she's made a conscious effort to be the master of her own life, rather than God. SO when this small piece of rebelliousness comes into contact with the almighty, worthy being that is God, what's to say she won't be burnt to a crisp in an instant?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Suppose a person was one of those 90% of humans who knows the difference between good and bad behaviour. And suppose that person does make a consistent effort (nobody's perfect) to try to be a good citizen of this world for no other reason than for the good of him/herself and others. And suppose that this morning someone tried to give that person a leaflet with the word "Christian" in big print on it, and s/he said, "No thank you."
All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans whateveritwas) Her not beign perfect is because in her sinning, she's made a conscious effort to be the master of her own life, rather than God. SO when this small piece of rebelliousness comes into contact with the almighty, worthy being that is God, what's to say she won't be burnt to a crisp in an instant?
Let me see if I've got this right:
My sins stop me from reaching perfection and saving myself. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Jesus' sacrifice makes it possible me to be saved by having faith and not rejecting God, so I no longer have to be perfect. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But because I am a slave of sin and not perfect, I cannot get rid of my rebelliousness. So I am likely to reject the offer of saving grace.
Aren't you making faith a work, rather than a response to the grace of a sovereign God, and thus bringing back works-based salvation by the back door?
[ 12. January 2006, 22:05: Message edited by: Demas ]
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
But because of Jesus, we only have to look at God, and go, "God, I'm sorry I did that, but now you really are the lord of my life, and I'm not" and he'll accept that. Every time.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
But because of Jesus, we only have to look at God, and go, "God, I'm sorry I did that, but now you really are the lord of my life, and I'm not" and he'll accept that. Every time.
I honestly don't understand why I am having so much trouble getting this point across on this thread. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I assume that you agree that because I am a slave to sin, I cannot choose to live my live without sinning. I will sin, this is inevitable. This means that I cannot earn my way into heaven by obeying God's commandments.
But you say above that Jesus died for my sins and I can choose him by saying "God, I'm sorry I did that, but now you really are the lord of my life, and I'm not". I will be saved, despite my sins
But in this scheme I still have to do something. I have to say sorry. I have to not reject God's grace and those who do this thing go to heaven, those who don't go to hell.
Why would I reject God? Why did OliviaG's hypothetical person not immediately hand her life over to Jesus?
Your suggested reason was that "in her sinning, she's made a conscious effort to be the master of her own life, rather than God", and that her "small piece of rebelliousness" was in the way. Isn't this just another way of saying that she is a sinner, and if she was just a little bit less of a sinner that she wouldn't have rejected the offer of salvation?
Aren't we right back where we started, with a system where you have to do something to get salvation? Before, you had to obey all of the commandments. Now you only have to obey one commandment - Believe!. But, just as before, your sinful nature and your sins will get in the way and prevent you from suceeding.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
<slight tangent>
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
this small piece of rebelliousness
I've gotta get that on a T-shirt...OliviaG
</tangent>
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
But because of Jesus, we only have to look at God, and go, "God, I'm sorry I did that, but now you really are the lord of my life, and I'm not" and he'll accept that. Every time.
I honestly don't understand why I am having so much trouble getting this point across on this thread.
I assume that you agree that because I am a slave to sin, I cannot choose to live my live without sinning. I will sin, this is inevitable. This means that I cannot earn my way into heaven by obeying God's commandments.
But you say above that Jesus died for my sins and I can choose him by saying "God, I'm sorry I did that, but now you really are the lord of my life, and I'm not". I will be saved, despite my sins
But in this scheme I still have to do something. I have to say sorry. I have to not reject God's grace and those who do this thing go to heaven, those who don't go to hell.
Demas, you won't get past this argument. At least, I never have. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It seems there are only three alternatives:
1. We have to do something to be saved;
2. God does everything and saves everyone
3. God does everything and still leaves some unsaved.
I categorically reject #3 as not being in keeping with a loving God as revealed by Christ in the Gospels.
Am I missing something?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It seems there are only three alternatives:
1. We have to do something to be saved;
2. God does everything and saves everyone
3. God does everything and still leaves some unsaved.
I categorically reject #3 as not being in keeping with a loving God as revealed by Christ in the Gospels.
Am I missing something?
<Disclaimer: I have not read the preceding 15 pages. Hence sorry if my comment is redundant or inappropriate.>
Yes, I think you are missing something. Namely that accepting God's grace is passive. We let God's grace act on and through us, we do not resist. Hence it's a non-action on our part. Our good deeds are always God's, who acts through us as a secondary cause.
Hence, the option you categorically reject is the correct one, although it is helpful to add:
"3. God does everything and still leaves some unsaved, namely those who ultimately resist His grace."
We condemn ourselves by acting over - and thereby always against - God. In that sense we can modify the first statement to
"1. We have to do nothing to be saved, namely to not resist God's grace."
(Of course this does not mean that the way to salvation is to lie catatonically in bed.) Really, it's all about following Mary's example: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."
Our modern fear is that thus we would become "grace-driven automata". But the mediaevals and ancients knew that grace perfects nature and that freedom consists in willling the Good, which is God. The argument above runs roughly parallel to the argument for the non-existence of evil, i.e., evil is the privation of good. It does not exist by and in itself, it is a lack, like darkness is the lack of light. Our resistance to God's grace, if unrepentantly maintained against all God does to our death, overshadows our spirit so that we end in the utter lack of God - hell.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yes, I think you are missing something. Namely that accepting God's grace is passive. We let God's grace act on and through us, we do not resist. Hence it's a non-action on our part. Our good deeds are always God's, who acts through us as a secondary cause.
Hence, the option you categorically reject is the correct one, although it is helpful to add:
"3. God does everything and still leaves some unsaved, namely those who ultimately resist His grace."
But what is it that gives some the strength to resist resisting? Labeling it "passive" doesn't change the problem with it--you still have to explain how some are able to passively sit by while others seem compelled to resist. And what if the resistance comes on the basis of inaccurate information, misunderstandings, misrepresentations and incomplete knowledge? These people aren't resisting God but rather the inaccurate manifestation of God presented to him/her here on earth. Surely they will not simply be held to a consequence of this unfortuante misunderstanding.
On this basis I would agree that any who resist God will end up in hell. However, none resist God. Not as he truly is.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
But what is it that gives some the strength to resist resisting?
This tries to change something non-active (not resisting) into something active (resisting resisting). But it simply is not. It is you becoming active, in saying "but I want rather this" which is at the root of sin.
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Labeling it "passive" doesn't change the problem with it--you still have to explain how some are able to passively sit by while others seem compelled to resist.
Clearly I did not attempt to explain the entire human condition in three paragraphs... As fallen human beings we are all "compelled to resist" to some extent. But God grants everybody enough grace to achieve salvation from that fallen condition - that must necessarily be so due to His universal salvific will (or generally speaking, His goodness and mercy). In particular, the first impulse to follow God is of course also due to God's grace (since it is clearly good). Individual difficulties are to a signficant extent due to the habitus one acquires over time through many instances of resistance or non-resistance. (The Latin word "habitus" is a bit more than "habit", it also indicates know-how etc.)
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
And what if the resistance comes on the basis of inaccurate information, misunderstandings, misrepresentations and incomplete knowledge? These people aren't resisting God but rather the inaccurate manifestation of God presented to him/her here on earth. Surely they will not simply be held to a consequence of this unfortuante misunderstanding.
Obviously. It is the classical understanding of sin that such factors can reduce a mortal sin to a lesser sin or even to not being a fault at all. However, this does not imply that all mortal sins of everybody disappear by default. Given that only God ultimately knows where blame will land, it is prudent to minimize one's sins as much as one can...
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
On this basis I would agree that any who resist God will end up in hell. However, none resist God. Not as he truly is.
This is mere assertion, although charity requires that all Christians should be hoping that it is fact. Unfortunately, I see not much in the world or indeed in scripture which makes this hope seem reasonable. I'm sure that if we thwart this hope, it will pierce God's heart. And maybe it already has...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As fallen human beings we are all "compelled to resist" to some extent. But God grants everybody enough grace to achieve salvation from that fallen condition - that must necessarily be so due to His universal salvific will (or generally speaking, His goodness and mercy). In particular, the first impulse to follow God is of course also due to God's grace (since it is clearly good). Individual difficulties are to a signficant extent due to the habitus one acquires over time through many instances of resistance or non-resistance.
This is then basically 1) above. We must do something to be saved. God's grace is then the power that He gives us to do or not do.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yes, I think you are missing something. Namely that accepting God's grace is passive. We let God's grace act on and through us, we do not resist. Hence it's a non-action on our part. Our good deeds are always God's, who acts through us as a secondary cause.
I submit that choosing not to do something (namely resisting grace) is as much an action as choosing to do something.
Even when the result of that choice is passive acceptance, the choice still has to be made.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yes, I think you are missing something. Namely that accepting God's grace is passive. We let God's grace act on and through us, we do not resist. Hence it's a non-action on our part. Our good deeds are always God's, who acts through us as a secondary cause.
I submit that choosing not to do something (namely resisting grace) is as much an action as choosing to do something.
Even when the result of that choice is passive acceptance, the choice still has to be made.
I agree. It seems absurd to try to wiggle out of this.
The desirability of having humans be completely passive recipients of divine grace is clear. But you have to have a way of resolving this conundrum to avoid Calvinism.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow:
I am unable to see how this can be reconciled.
Indeed.
What it basically boils down to is: either
a) we have no choice in the matter, or
b) God has no choice in the matter.
If (b) is true, then the question of God allowing people to go to Hell is answered. He can't stop them.
If, however, (a) is true, we have another either/or situation, namely:
c) no-one goes to Hell, or
d) some go to Hell.
Again, if (c) is true then the question of God allowing people to go to Hell is answered (He doesn't).
But if (d) is true, where does it leave us? Double predestination.
15 pages later, and we still haven't reconciled any of this. I'm guessing we wn't have 15 pages hence either...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
It is our choice - Arminianism.
It is God's choice - Calvinism.
God chooses us all - Universalism.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
It is our choice but not that we can do anything because it is by faith and not by works so our choice is not a work - Modern Protestantism (in some senses, a watered down Calvinism)
It is our choice, granted to us by the vast grace of God, who allows us to make a choice and credits us with the consequence of it - "Freddyism" (in some senses, a watered down Arminianism)
It is God's choice, and it is our hope and belief that God will save us all though none of us truly know, and therefore let's live our life to the fullest loving everyone as deeply as we can until we meet God and all becomes clear - "Digoryism" (in some senses, a watered down Universalism)
*Not that I credit Freddy or I with designing these positions, but rather that we seem to have held to them to some degree through these 15 pages.
-Digory
[ 16. January 2006, 13:06: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It is our choice, granted to us by the vast grace of God, who allows us to make a choice and credits us with the consequence of it - "Freddyism" (in some senses, a watered down Arminianism)
Thank you, Digory. Nice description.
It is in no sense "watered down Arminianism", however. Arminianism, according to Wikipedia has different postulates:
quote:
Free Will with Partial Depravity: Freedom of will is man's natural state, not a spiritual gift - and thus free will was not lost in the Fall, but cannot be exercised toward good apart from the grace of God. Grace works upon all men to influence them for good, but only those who freely choose to agree with grace by faith and repentance are given new spiritual power to make effectual the good they otherwise impotently intend. As John Wesley stated more forcefully, humans were in fact totally corrupted by original sin, but God's prevenient grace allowed free will to operate. Contra the Calvinist view of depravity which denies universal prevenient grace and moral ability to turn to Christ.
Conditional Election: God has decreed to save through Jesus, out of fallen and sinful mankind, those foreknown by Him who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Christ; but God leaves in sin those foreseen, who are incorrigible and unbelieving. Contra the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.
Universal Atonement Applicable Only to the Believer: Christ's death was suffered on behalf of all men, but God elects for salvation only those who believe in Christ. Contra the Calvinist doctrine of Limited atonement.
Resistible Grace: The grace of God works for good in all men, and brings about newness of life through faith. But grace can be resisted even by the regenerate. Contra the Calvinist's Irresistible grace.
Uncertain Perseverance: Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to enable them to persevere in the faith. But it may be possible for a believer to fall from grace. Contra the Calvinist's perseverance of the saints.
The New Church position, by contrast, is that grace is the source of our free will, and therefore of our power to obey or disobey.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It is our choice but not that we can do anything because it is by faith and not by works so our choice is not a work - Modern Protestantism (in some senses, a watered down Calvinism)
Calvarminianism? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The New Church position, by contrast, is that grace is the source of our free will, and therefore of our power to obey or disobey.
The main difference being, as I see it, that grace is given to us all SO THAT we may choose. So in that sense, you can't resist the grace, like Arminianists would see it, because everyone makes a choice. Irresistable grace gives us the ability to choose, and the choice we make, through God's power alone, is credited to us.
Is that right?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
The main difference being, as I see it, that grace is given to us all SO THAT we may choose. So in that sense, you can't resist the grace, like Arminianists would see it, because everyone makes a choice. Irresistable grace gives us the ability to choose, and the choice we make, through God's power alone, is credited to us.
Is that right?
Digory, yes, that's right.
In other words, we do have the power that we seem to have. We can do what we like. We are able, for example, to live within the Ship's commandments and remain a part of this community. But this power is not actually ours but God's, which He gives us by grace.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I submit that choosing not to do something (namely resisting grace) is as much an action as choosing to do something.
Even when the result of that choice is passive acceptance, the choice still has to be made.
<un-Christian aside> ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) May Ockham burn for all eternity in hell! </un-Christian aside>
No. You are assuming that your choice is independent of God. Sort of like this:
God: Hi Marvin, here's choice A and there's choice B. Let's apply some abundant grace here. <choice A starts blinking wildly> Which one will you have?
Marvin: Tough one, God. I think I will pick B, thanks.
God:
But that's not the case. God is as much in your choices as He is in anything else in the universe, your freedom is one of participation in his freedom and creativity. Your choices are not "independent" of God. So it's more like you are getting carried along in this big river and your destiny is being washed into the sea. Your good choices, for A in the example above, are part of that getting carried along passively by God's grace. It's only when you grab an overhanging branch and hold tight, when you resist grace by picking B, that you become active. If you refuse to let go of that branch, you will ultimately miss being washed into the sea.
The problem here is not at all my definition of activity and passivity. Rather, the problem is that after centuries of Ockhamite indoctrination we cannot fathom anymore how personal freedom could be anything but making a totally independent choice.
An ideal life of non-Ockhamian freedom would be one where we always follow that inner urge to do the "right thing". We all know this sort of instinctive and instantaneous judgement in us, and we all know how we often go against it. And in that ideal life this urge would both get continuously stronger and more competent, more refined as we grow older and develop wisdom. Clearly there are easier and harder "questions" asked of us, and while nearly everybody knows in his heart that in principle one should avoid killing other people, there are many problems in our lives which are much more difficult. So there's in this ideal life a steady improvement of the "habitus" of leading a good life.
Assume you see the final, ideal product of this, the perfect saint. From an Ockhamian perspective, this perfect saint has no freedom at all. For she never hesitates on any choice, it is always clear to her what to do, what is right and good, and there's not the slightest temptation left to do anything else. However, practically speaking that saint is fully engaged with her entire person in constant and rapid decision making as life throws up one question after the next. And it's not as if the individuality of that saint is destroyed. A different perfect saint may well proceed down a somewhat different decision tree which is right and good for him. Nor for that matter do such saints not suffer, for just because one chooses for example martyrdom without hesitation does not magically remove pain and death. But for Ockham and us moderns these perfect saints are mere grace robots, since they do not "really have a choice anymore".
That's the tragedy of our times: If we are honest, then saints appear less than human to us for their "lack of choice". And indeed, Jesus Himself is then decidedly subhuman... ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your choices are not "independent" of God. So it's more like you are getting carried along in this big river and your destiny is being washed into the sea. Your good choices, for A in the example above, are part of that getting carried along passively by God's grace. It's only when you grab an overhanging branch and hold tight, when you resist grace by picking B, that you become active. If you refuse to let go of that branch, you will ultimately miss being washed into the sea.
So, let me see if I have this straight. The person being carried to sea, at times, passes under some overhanging branches. At these times, she looks up, sees the branch, and chooses to grab the branch or, conversely, chooses to remain in the current by not grabbing the branch.
Thus, the salvation of the person lies in their decision to remain in the current or to grab an overhanging branch.
I think we are back to Freddy's position, then.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
No, we are not back to Freddy's position. Let me try it this way: I throw a stone at your face. You instinctively duck. I throw a stone at your face again. This time, by sheer force of will you remain unmoved and take the hit. Now, you can declare that the situation presents a simple choice, either to duck or to stay still, and that in both cases you have exercised your freedom to make that choice equally, just in opposing ways. This may be a valid description from some external point of view. But it does not at all reflect your internal reality. Clearly, to duck is the default action which you will pick without fail, unless you exercise your will clearly and strongly to oppose that default action. And even then you might flinch. So the "choices" are entirely unequal, one is natural and right, the other is artifical and wrong, and picking the default action is basically just a function of your cognitive faculties working as they should.
In that analogy "ducking" is like going along with God's grace, "standing still" is resisting. The analogy works only in bringing out the unequal nature of the "choices". Unfortunately, real life moral decisions can result in a more negative outcome for oneself if one picks the "right" option. So the punishment may be associated with "right" rather than "wrong". Further, real life moral decision require the engagement of our intellectual facilities, rather than mere "reaction to visual input". Hence there's a greater chance of error, and more "training" is required. But all I want to show is that an action (ducking) can be based on a mental default, hence passive with regards to our will.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Okay, Ingo, that's a better analogy. But still, it's not completely different from Freddy's idea.
The person who decides to stand firm in the way of the rock and get a face full of stone must first entertain the idea of standing firm, and decide to go ahead with this idea. Not everyone who considers this path necessarily chooses it however. So either you choose to allow your natural reaction do what it does best or you choose to act against it.
A choice still exists even if the options are rather weighted. I still am credited for choosing against rejection.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
The person who decides to stand firm in the way of the rock and get a face full of stone must first entertain the idea of standing firm, and decide to go ahead with this idea. Not everyone who considers this path necessarily chooses it however. So either you choose to allow your natural reaction do what it does best or you choose to act against it.
A choice still exists even if the options are rather weighted. I still am credited for choosing against rejection.
Now you are suggesting the following "credit" scheme:
1) Duck immediately. - Zero.
2) First decide to not duck, then reconsider. Duck. - Positive.
3) Decide not to duck and stand still. - Negative.
Clearly then the best choice would be 2), which is nonsensical. In fact, all that has happened in 2) is that your disordered will - which somehow temporarily entertained the really stupid idea of standing still - stopped interfering in time to avoid the stone. That's somewhat less good than simply ducking in the first place. Since directly ducking earns you zero credit, we have
1) Duck immediately. - Zero.
2) First decide to not duck, then reconsider. Duck. - Small negative.
3) Decide not to duck and stand still. - Large negative.
That makes sense. What's happening internally in 2) is simply that your instinct keeps jammering away "Duck, duck, duck I say, will you bloody well duuuuckkkk...." and finally your resistance breaks down and you do. Clearly, hearing the message right at the start as in 1) is more appropriate. Clearly ignoring it till the stone hits as in 3) is even less appropriate. It's pointless to claim credit for a "decision to stop resisting", that's just an external description and could be multiplied ad infinitum ("credit for the decision to decide on stopping the resistance" etc.). Internally you just stop fighting your instinct, that's all.
(Ok, if the stone thrower is a long way off, you might manage an intellectual internal debate on the merits of getting a stone hit your face prior to getting hit. That's simply the point where the analogy breaks down. I was on purpose discussing one action/decision. An internal debate in real life would have to be considered as multiple such actions/decisions in a row.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I was on purpose discussing one action/decision. An internal debate in real life would have to be considered as multiple such actions/decisions in a row.)
Not quite.
quote:
Let me try it this way: I throw a stone at your face. You instinctively duck. I throw a stone at your face again. This time, by sheer force of will you remain unmoved and take the hit.
I make this point not to be an ass, but to show something. Nobody stands in the way of the stone on the first throw, just as your analogy suggests. Our instinct demands that we duck. Resisting this instinct is, by your definition, a sheer force of will. Somewhere during this sheer force of will would be the decision to not duck, and the course of action to ready oneself to stand firm. Amidst this decision making process one must decide if he/she will resist or not. Hence, the choice.
Life can be described as a single throw, in which case everyone who is able will duck, or it can be described as a long series of throws, during which people will start off following the duck instinct, but over the course of the throws will be forced to make a decision between continuing the instinct following behavior or deciding to reject it and resist. That's the choice.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Nobody stands in the way of the stone on the first throw, just as your analogy suggests. Our instinct demands that we duck. Resisting this instinct is, by your definition, a sheer force of will. Somewhere during this sheer force of will would be the decision to not duck, and the course of action to ready oneself to stand firm. Amidst this decision making process one must decide if he/she will resist or not. Hence, the choice.
Unfortunately, and as mentioned, the analogy is faulty in that moral decisions in real life often involve (seemingly) positive experiences for the wrong choice. Thus sleeping with your neighbour's wife does not result in a bloody nose (immediately), but in pleasing sensations from other parts of your anatomy. Due to God's grace there will still be some initial "instinctive" hesitation if the opportunity arises. But unless you've build up a virtuous "habitus", which includes prior reasoning about which sort of sexuality is "right" for you, you may well end up resisting grace and enjoying the sexual gratification of adultery.
The universal salvific will of God guarantees only that we receive enough "promptings" from grace to be able to build up a "habitus" over time which will see us through. It is reasonable to assume that God supplies such grace in over-abundance, and that his just judgement is exceedingly merciful, so that this is really quite do-able (relative to the challenges one faces in life - the failings of one may well be the successes of another). But I see no evidence or reason to assume that he supplies irresistible grace to all, so that nobody can possibly ever fail.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
IngoB, I agree with your position but I think it moves the point of difficulty away from the personal to the universal and you're either ducking this, or more likely I've just failed to grasp what you're saying.
What is it that ultimately determines whether a person will resist God's will or not? What is choice?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
