|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The background of Calvinism
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
In its most generous interpretation, TULIP says that some will get justice (and condemnation) and some will get mercy, and that there is nothing in any individual that merits mercy over justice. Since there is no good in any of us, the very concepts of `good' and `justice' are rendered meaningless.
You spell out very well one of the apparently logical consequences of Total Depravity - election is arbitrary and human understandings of good, evil, justice are meaningless. But what Mudfrog posted does not necessarily force those conclusions, even though they seem obvious from the language of "Total Depravity". Here is how I'm thinking about it. Using an analogy with criminology, there is a difference between an incorrigible recidivist and a psychopath. The recidivist knows, in some distorted way, and may even care, in some distorted way. He just can't seem to find the way to change, even thought there are times when he may want to. The psychopath certainly does not care, and in some sense may be incapable of knowing. He can't change either, but for different reasons. Mudfrog's description applies much better to recidivism than psychopathology.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
One of the reasons Calvin adopted Augustines thought so readily is easily apparent. LUTHER.
It is helpful to know your generations of Reformers. Luther is First Generation Calvin is Second. When he comes under the humanist influence and takes the a reformers line, he is very clearly entering in with an established party not setting out on his own.
Calvin sees Luther as such an important person in Church History he refers to him as an Apostle. He never claims that status for himself. Calvin will have seen his action in writing as codification of the Christian faith rather than creating a new Theological approach. He certainly would not have seen it as breaking with the past. When he deals with historical theological statements (the vast majority of the time in his Institutes) he is rewritting it from where he stands rather than taking the official line. Generations of scholars have done so since.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
True. The Holy Spirit convicts of our total depravity, and reveals this dilemma of sin.
Paul wrote about it in Romans 6 - "I do what I don't want to", etc.
Holiness teaching gives the remedy.
"He breaks the power of cancelled sin, his blood avails for me."
And this:
Will my Saviour only pass by, only show me how faulty I've been?
Will he not attend to my cry?
Can I not at this moment be clean?
Blessed Lord, almighty to heal, I know that thy power cannot fail;
Here and now I know, yes I feel
The prayer of my heart does prevail.
Whiter than the snow! Whiter than the snow!
Wash me in the blood of the Lamb,
And I shall be whiter than snow!
There is therefore release for the recidivist.
I hope so anyway!
[ 25. September 2006, 15:54: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, I am coming round to that way of thinking as well, Jengie Jon. I'm not with you 100% yet, but I may be getting there. Calvin certainly wants to stand in continuity with the first generation Reformers, Luther in particular. So this, of course, must includes their criticisms of Rome. But he does not wish to set aside the whole of antiquity either. If he finds truth there he will declare it. This quote from the Institutes is pretty pertinent - Book 2 Chapter 3 Section 13.
quote:
Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest the Pelagians of our age, I mean the sophists of the Sorbonne, charge us after their wont with being opposed to all antiquity. (my emboldening)
The issue is of course that some see some of Augustine's ideas as "bathwater", not "baby".
[ 25. September 2006, 16:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
Well, here in lies the problem. If I believed in something as awful as everlasting punishment then I would talk about it all the time.
You'd think so, wouldn't you. But the idea of huge swathes of humanity going to hell in their respective handbaskets is more than most people can deal with. The only "rational" reaction would be to race from door to door trying to convince people of the error of their ways. But people can't live like that - so they have to develop a coping strategy.
Similarly, you'd think that if you really believed there were a billion people below the poverty line in the world... and unfair trade policies and practices in the West exacerbating that - that you'd talk about that all the time. And use every waking moment to change it.
But we don't. We can't live like that. And so we develop a coping strategy, and carry on with our lives.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
In TULIP theology there is no hope for the unevangelised, and through no `fault' of their own
Whatever gave you that idea?
Its exactly the other way round. The Arminian/Wesleyan view requires real saving faith, actual belief in Christ. So the unevangelised and ignorant are in the shit. The Semi-Pelagian view further requires actual reform of life and manners in this world - so they are not only in the shit they are sinking.
If they are not in the shit then the only reason can be that they get a special pass from God, a sort of bye into the next round. In which case the evangelised have every right to resent the wicked missionaries who first told them the bad news of Christ, because they are worse off having heard it than they were in their ignorance.
The monergist view (good word that - I never heard it before this thread) doesn't have that problem. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. If God chooses to save those who don't know they are saved, who maybe don't think of themselves as part of the Chuirch, who maybe haven't even heard of Jesus, who are we to complain? They are saved on the same basis as the rest of us are - God's free choice, not their own work, whether by hand or by brain. Parable of the workmen's wages applies here. So its the Augustinians and Calvinists who potentially have a let-out from this bind.
Of course its all not a problem for Universalists. They can happily proclaim the Good News, knowing that it is not risking anyone's immortal soul.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And there's one other group for whom it's not a big bind... those that trust in God.
Glib, I know, but I know some people who are just like that.
I announce the angst in my soul over the fate of those not predestined/unpreached to/preached to and didn't get it.... and they shrug and say "I don't know. But God will get it right."
There's a lot to be said for that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
If God chooses to save those who don't know they are saved, who maybe don't think of themselves as part of the Chuirch, who maybe haven't even heard of Jesus, who are we to complain?
I assume you're taking the p. There's a good thread in Hell for anyone wanting to wind up TULIP fanciers.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm missing the piss taking... isn't that a pov?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Calvinists say, “Irresistable grace for some people!”
Arminians say, “Resistable grace for everyone!”
But scripture says, “God desires that all men will be saved,” and “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess.” So both positions require some flexible interpretation of scripture.
Resistable grace does not seem to be consistent with any concept of God. If a truly free person would have no reason to choose other than God, then choice is preserved even if all people receive grace. It’s a logically-consistent position that resonates with most theists’ experience of God (that God is great beyond words). And it underlies the concept that some day, when we all see clearly, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. It’s even been considered by some on this thread--
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
How can a sane, normal human being choose damnation? Only if they are out of their mind with depravity... or don't understand what they are choosing (eg the sheep "choosing" eternal life by helping the poor - and the goats presumably rejecting it by not doing the same)... which hardly seems fair or just either. Rather like a parent asking their child whether they want to help their younger brother or not, then suddenly revealing that it was a test... and the child who helped gets to watch TV tonight, the one who didn't get's an early night and a smack.
But if grace is irresistable, who receives it?
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
1. Reject ‘works' fully, and embrace 5-point Calvinism and all that it entails
2. Accept that Pelagius had it right all along, at least in some degree -- works, or at least human cooperation, in some form, is a prerequisite to human salvation
3. Embrace full-blown universalism
Except, (1) and (3) are really just variations of “Monergism,” which is a better term than “Calvinism” to refer to the idea of “Irresistable grace for x number of people.” In that case, - Calvinism refers to “x = some”,
- Universalism refers to “x = all”, and
- there is no term that I know of that refers to “x = none”.
Calvinism is repugnant to many because there is no understandable reason for x to equal "some". And the Calvinist explanations are usually unsatisfactory.
God is just?
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb: The problem with this view however is that you'll say God is immoral for not adopting everyone. Calvinists on the other hand think that God allows his love to compromise his justice by adopting even one undeserving sinner.
We are just as unclear about what God’s justice really is as we are about his love. What seems fairly clear to most, however, is that if God truly cares for his creation, arbitrary salvation is cruel to the unsaved. In response to m.t-tomb’s question, “If God chose to save but one sinner from the mass of sinful humanity would it still be a gracious act?” my answer is, “It depends on who you ask—the one guy who got saved or one of the billions of damned.”
God’s grace is unconditional?
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
But the belief with which one believes belongs to Christ and is dispensed by God unconditionally and upon no basis of merit. No-one deserves to have faith.
If no one deserves it, then “unconditional” means that no one gets it, or everyone gets it. Otherwise, the people that get it do so based on a condition.
God’s grace is scandalous?
quote:
The real scandal is that God saves any, not that he saves some.
Limited salvation can only be honorable if it is based on limited ability. (The man who saves 5 out of 10 people from drowning in the flood is a hero because it is believed that he was unable to save any more than he did. If it was determined that the man could have saved all 10, but chose not to for no understandable reason, he would get far less praise for his actions, if any.)
I believe God’s grace is good enough that no free person would reject it. And I believe God is good enough that he wouldn’t withhold his grace from anyone. Taken together, I can’t escape a monergist universalist position. That it conflicts with scripture at points is difficult, but irrelevant, when you consider how all three positions conflict with scripture at various points.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The more I think about it, the more universalism appeals. A Calvinist Universalism, that is.
Or Monergism where x = all. That’s where I am, too, mdijon.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
I'm missing the piss taking... isn't that a pov?
Of course it is, but I did really think that. I was about to launch into an explanation of why that was a total distortion of the Reformed position when I read it again and thought . . this is a windup. Maybe it's not.
It is definitely a distortion to say:
quote:
The Arminian/Wesleyan view requires real saving faith, actual belief in Christ.
as if the Reformed view is any different.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I assume you're taking the p.
Why?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It is definitely a distortion to say:
quote:
The Arminian/Wesleyan view requires real saving faith, actual belief in Christ.
as if the Reformed view is any different.
Not a distortion. I'm trying to point out (among other things) that EXACTLY THE SAME moral problems arise in both systems.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
professor kirke: What a fantastic post. I've been trying to follow this tortuous path through its 11 pages, and this shone out for its clarity and clearness of thought. Thank you.
- Chris
PS: not that a lot of other people haven't given excellent arguments: it's just that I found this particularly helpful.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's well argued professor - and I wouldn't expect any different - but it still looks like second-guessing God to me. Vaguely remember a quote from a C S Lewis book which goes something like this
"God in his mercy made
the fixed pains of Hell"
Hateful isn't it? Would love to rule that out. But I just can't. Not my job. It's not so much the scriptural issues - you're quite right about that applying to the non-universalist positions as well. But basically, I'm not "hanging on the Hell" because somehow it floats my boats. It's an intolerable doctrine. And I vacillate between fervently hoping that Hell will ultimately be empty and equally fervently believing I have no right to say that either.
And so like all the non-Universalists I face the "how can you believe in a God who would do that?" stuff. The issue is "do what"? Don't like that either.
So I pray, "Lord give me monergy. But maybe not yet? I never fancied exclusivity, Lord. Bring 'em all home. But keep me guessing Lord". Somehow that seems to work. What's wrong with "leave judgment to God and trust Him"? That really does seem both scriptural and obedient to me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Resistable grace does not seem to be consistent with any concept of God.
Huh?
It clearly is consistant with some people's view of God, just as a lack of omnipotence is consistant with a process view of God.
What on earth do you mean?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's well argued professor - and I wouldn't expect any different - but it still looks like second-guessing God to me.
Second-guessing God isn't necessarily negative. After all, sometimes you find out that it wasn't God you were second-guessing anyway.
quote:
What's wrong with "leave judgment to God and trust Him"? That really does seem both scriptural and obedient to me.
In the end, that's exactly what I have to say. It's probably what most of us say. But when pressed, we have a belief that we tend towards. For me, inclusive monergism is the only one that really makes sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Resistable grace does not seem to be consistent with any concept of God.
Huh?
It clearly is consistant with some people's view of God, just as a lack of omnipotence is consistant with a process view of God.
What on earth do you mean?
I mean that nobody thinks of God as merely "alright." Most theists think of God as the best of all things. Given a completely free choice, it's not likely that someone would reject the best of all things. We reject things because there is something better we want--or we at least perceive something to be better. But if God truly IS the best, like most people believe, then anyone who even perceives something to be better than God would not be making an informed choice and thus, would cease to be free.
If God's the best, every completely free choice would be for God. Which is what m.t-tomb has said already, but we of course disagree on who is able to make these completely free choices.
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Resistable grace does not seem to be consistent with any concept of God.
The difficulty is that neither is irresistable grace.
Which leaves us rather stuck.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Fair points, professor kirke - and mdijon! Maybe in the end we just have to choose where in conscience we can stand - or kneel maybe. And I suspect that, in the end, it might not matter as much as we sometimes think.
After today I'm off-watch for a while. A surgeon is whipping out my gallbladder. So please "remember my affliction, the wormwood and the gall"! But I am very grateful to all Shipmates for this amazing thread and expect it still to be around when I get home and am up to keyboarding again. (Keyhole surgery promises a quick recovery).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The more I think about it, the more universalism appeals. A Calvinist Universalism, that is.
Or Monergism where x = all. That’s where I am, too, mdijon.
[/QB]
Nothing else makes much sense to me either, problematic as it is in other respects.
Like everybody else, I have to sort of shrug and admit that I don't understand how this stuff works, and hope that God, as mdijon say, will `get it right' in the end.
But I just don't see that any of the mainstream soteriological views put about by Christian denominations equate to God's `getting it right'. I don't see how you can ascribe to, say, Calvinism, and then think that God has the opportunity to get it right within that model. It's certainly not `right' for the billions chosen for the toast-rack. And the problems in Arminian and semi-Pelagian soteriology, as Ken says, are just the same, merely differently expressed.
I think that if your soteriological viewpoint does not allow for any way in which God can get it right, the sensible thing to do is to reject that soteriological view in favour of a different one, and not just shrug off the problem.
But that's just me -- I have a low tolerance for logical inconsistency. It might not bother others. Clearly, in fact, it fails to bother a great many people.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's well argued professor - and I wouldn't expect any different - but it still looks like second-guessing God to me. Vaguely remember a quote from a C S Lewis book which goes something like this
"God in his mercy made
the fixed pains of Hell"
In case anyone's interested this is from The Pilgrim's Regress, and the context was that evil, left to itself, gets worse ad infinitum, and therefore creating a "worst thing" is an act of mercy.
quote:
Hateful isn't it? Would love to rule that out.
Yes. Sometime difficult things are difficult because they're wrong... In this case, Regress was one of the first things Lewis wrote after his conversion. I'm not sure if he revised this view, but I'm sure he didn't stop thinking about it there, and I don't think we should either!
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
If God chooses to save those who don't know they are saved, who maybe don't think of themselves as part of the Chuirch, who maybe haven't even heard of Jesus, who are we to complain?
I assume you're taking the p. There's a good thread in Hell for anyone wanting to wind up TULIP fanciers.
Getting a little personal anteater. Take it to Hell.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
[ 26. September 2006, 12:02: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
The reason that I think that God's grace must be resistable is that Adam and Eve resisted it.
I know that most Calvinists think that Superlapsianism (that God created some people to damned) is a heresay but I find Adam and Eve's ability to resist God at odds with Irresistable grace.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
The reason that I think that God's grace must be resistable is that Adam and Eve resisted it.
I'm not sure about that. IMHO grace appeared in Genesis 3 v 15 and 22.
[ 26. September 2006, 13:18: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
I know that most Calvinists think that Superlapsianism (that God created some people to damned) is a heresay but I find Adam and Eve's ability to resist God at odds with Irresistable grace.
Most Calvinists, so far as I know, do indeed disavow supralapsarianism, when they think about the matter at all. But, in fact, I think most Reformed-type churches try to avoid getting drawn into a discussion of this matter, because it just causes division and doesn't get them anywhere.
As I understand it, the distinction is that the supra view holds that God predestined some to be saved and some to be damned in contemplation of the as-yet unfallen nature of man. The Fall was a logical consequence of God's decision that some should be damned.
The infra view, IIUC, is that election happens post-Fall and that, rather than being reprobated by God, all mankind reprobated itself through the apple incident.
The infra view tries to get God off the hook, by claiming that the Fall was not God's doing and, had Adam not eaten the wretched apple, nobody need have been reprobate.
But both positions have the same fundamental problem, which is that both deny all human goodness or worth. Both claim that God is `just', despite the widespread and ineluctable damnation, because we are all depraved. But in both positions depravity/sin/corruption, or whatever you call it, are meaningless concepts, because we are all fundamentally as depraved and worthless as each other.
In short, in makes no logical sense to say (contra Pelagius) that you can't get into heaven by being `good', and then explain away damnation by saying that we are all fundamentally `bad' (whether it be by God's decision or Adam's). Both the supra and the infra positions try to do exactly this. Either `good' and `bad' are meaningful in respect of salvation, or they are not. You can't have it both ways.
I submit that, if you think that infralapsarianism paints a more agreeable picture of the nature of God than supralapsarians, you are mistaken.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
we are all fundamentally `bad' (whether it be by God's decision or Adam's).
Just to pick up on that one particular point, either way it's not my decision or therefore my responsibility to be fundamentally 'bad'/ totally depraved, so where's the justice (of God) in punishing me for that?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have always understood 'depravity' as 'corruption' not badness per se. Is it the wardrobes fault it has woodworm, no, but you still better put it on the bonfire.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, but there's no morality attached to the action of putting a wardrobe on the bonfire; I however am a moral being, as is God, and I fail to see the justice and correctness in Him punishing me for something I haven't actually done.
In short, I'd like to think I'm worth a bit more than a wardrobe! ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
OK, I'm not a calvinist, in the sense that I hold to the view that man has freewill to choose or reject God, but I am a (weak) universalist, in that I believe that, in the long run, everyone will choose life above "not-life", however one might define that, be it hell, anihilation etc. In fact I believe that the "natural", (I use the term because I can't find a better one, though I am aware that the meaning I attach to it is diametically opposed to Paul's meaning) inclination of people is towards their creator. Sin, rather than being part of the fundamental nature of the human condition, is rather a perversion, a dis-ease, if you like, brought on by the fall. Heal the dis-ease, and you restore people to health, restore them to health and they will choose, of their own free will, those things which God would have chosen for them. It is this healing that I see as the heart of the atonement, rather than forgiveness per se, which IMHO, God would have been able to release without any necessity for the cross.
Of course, it is perfectly clear that healing inherent in the atonement is only partially effective in people's lives, and to different degrees according to the, to pursue the analogy, seriousness of the symptoms of that disease in an individual's life. Likewise we can do things that either hinder (say, harbouring resentment) or help (say, joining ourselves with other fellow pilgrims in a church community who worship togetrher regularly) the speed of healing. But the work is only completed at death or at the eschaton.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but there's no morality attached to the action of putting a wardrobe on the bonfire; I however am a moral being, as is God, and I fail to see the justice and correctness in Him punishing me for something I haven't actually done.
In short, I'd like to think I'm worth a bit more than a wardrobe!
A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
He will give you a month to live and sign the death certificate - but he didn't make it happen or will it to be so.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
How is general total depravity seen to be a biblical belief when the bible both talks about particular individuals as righetous - eg Job and frequently makes the distinction between rightous and wicked people (for example see the psalms). The OT in particular seems to be quite happy to label particular people as righteous and yet I don't think in any way this is meant to mean these people were perfect.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
Did he make the disease?
If your mother and father told you not to walk on the balcony and then, after you fell off, you blamed them for breaking the bones, would that be fair? I think not.
The consequence of the fall was loss of innocence and a sense of guilt. God created neither of those things - but he did introduce the concepts of judgment and grace - Genesis 3.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Sorry to be missing this thread ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Life, however, dictates that I spend less time defending the truth of Calvinism and more time doing my job. I do read it though... and occasionally mutter my disapproval.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
Did he make the disease?
If your mother and father told you not to walk on the balcony and then, after you fell off, you blamed them for breaking the bones, would that be fair? I think not.
But there'd be something warped if my mother and father then broke the bones of all my children because I walked on the balcony, and held them responsible for the fractures.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
Did he make the disease?
If your mother and father told you not to walk on the balcony and then, after you fell off, you blamed them for breaking the bones, would that be fair? I think not.
But you missed the major points of Mouse's post.
No, you can't blame your parents for breaking your bones, but none of us would think too highly of the parents who, in that situation, said "I told you not to walk on the balcony, hell if I'm helping you now." Even if a prideful child 'resisted' the help of the parents.
A doctor who treats his own son might not treat the son's 'rejection' of treatment with such apathy, either. The notion that perhaps the human doctor might be wrong about which treatment to prescribe is what makes the human version of this analogy weak. But in a situation where the doctor knows beyond any doubt the perfect treatment for the child's disease, most of us would assume that the doctor would chase after the child and attempt to convince him... forever if necessary.
The argument from there is whether or not any will eternally resist the offer of love and healing from the perfect doctor, so to speak.
Calvinism says that some were destined to eternally resist because, as m.t-tomb has explained, they are never given a completely free choice. Arminism typically suggests that some will eternally resist due to the stubbornnes of their will.
I don't find either position to be defensible.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Sorry to be missing this thread
I do read it though... and occasionally mutter my disapproval.
That, for me, sums up the rather dour Presbyterian Scots and Irish Calvinists -
life denying rather than life affirming.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Hmmmph...having met Numps in the flesh I can assure you he is not like that.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
Did he make the disease?
If your mother and father told you not to walk on the balcony and then, after you fell off, you blamed them for breaking the bones, would that be fair? I think not.
But you missed the major points of Mouse's post.
No, you can't blame your parents for breaking your bones, but none of us would think too highly of the parents who, in that situation, said "I told you not to walk on the balcony, hell if I'm helping you now." Even if a prideful child 'resisted' the help of the parents.
A doctor who treats his own son might not treat the son's 'rejection' of treatment with such apathy, either. The notion that perhaps the human doctor might be wrong about which treatment to prescribe is what makes the human version of this analogy weak. But in a situation where the doctor knows beyond any doubt the perfect treatment for the child's disease, most of us would assume that the doctor would chase after the child and attempt to convince him... forever if necessary.
The argument from there is whether or not any will eternally resist the offer of love and healing from the perfect doctor, so to speak.
Calvinism says that some were destined to eternally resist because, as m.t-tomb has explained, they are never given a completely free choice. Arminism typically suggests that some will eternally resist due to the stubbornnes of their will.
I don't find either position to be defensible.
I think you're taking the analogy too far.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
(Do I really have to ask this?)
How so?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
(Do I really have to ask this?)
How so?
Because you are trying to make the analogy fit every last detail. An analogy is useful for illustrating one or two points, but it usually falls down when you push it too far.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Ah well, this brings us round to the point I made and then didn't back up on the Hell thread, hmmm. An analogy can only really successfully used to illustrate (note: illustrate, not prove) the point that the creator intended. It is useful for showing someone how something works. However, that doesn't guarantee that every aspect of the analogy will fit with every aspect of the real life situation; the creator never intended for it to be used that way. That's where 'taking the analogy too far' comes from. Similarly, an analogy does not of itself prove anything (my point) because though it can show how something works, it can't show that it does work full stop. Modelling Calvinism as a disease can illuminate someone as to how Calvinism is supposed to work. Showing that two completely unrelated systems can be made to show a close correspondence does not, however, prove that one of them works.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I would argue that you can't prove any of this type of thing by any means, analogy or not. In which case, I'm not sure what the point is of saying that analogies don't prove anything. Of course they don't.
Analogies can point. Just like the Bible points at God. Just like Jesus's parables always pointed at the truth.
Sometimes the very analogy that you think is pointing to your belief might in fact be pointing further off in the distance to a different one entirely. It does no harm to suggest that.
Many people want an analogy from our life that will make the idea of God sending/allowing people to burn in Hell forever sound more plausible. I find that upon closer inspection, every such analogy fails, pointing instead to something different, usually.
'Pushing the analogy too far' is usually a synonym for 'pointing out that the analogy doesn't work and might even disprove your original point.'
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I'm sure I read it further up but I can't find it now, that someone said that John 3 v 16 means For God so loved the world (ie the Church) that he gave his only....."
Can the scholars here affirm that the word for 'world' is actually 'cosmos'? And that this word means the world with all its systems, affairs, societies and peoples; and that the word 'cosmos' does not refer to the church?
I would have thought that had Jesus meant to say that 'God so loved the church', he would have said so.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The way God loved the world was, and still is, to call certain people to himself. That's how he does it; that's how God loves the world.
I ask you: why is it that you believe and your neighbour does not? Is it because you have done something more righteous than they have?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The way God loved the world was, and still is, to call certain people to himself. That's how he does it; that's how God loves the world.
That's not `loving the world' in any meaningful sense; at best it is loving certain people. At worst it is a cruel trick played against everybody, because we most likely will know and love people who are not so `called'.
If I said that I loved my family, when I doted on my daughter and (say) left my son to play in the traffic, you would think I was deranged.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The way God loved the world was, and still is, to call certain people to himself. That's how he does it; that's how God loves the world.
I ask you: why is it that you believe and your neighbour does not? Is it because you have done something more righteous than they have?
Not at all. It's just that I have taken up the opporuntiy, when offered, to hear the gospel and accept Christ. It is so not the case that God loves me because he knew that i would believe.
The Bible says that he loves first, then we respond.
He does not only love those who love him - didn't Jesus say something about that?
The whole world is the enemy of God - surely that qualifies them for divine love - again, didn't Jesus say something about that too?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Popsted by Mudfrog: quote:
Not at all. It's just that I have taken up the opporuntiy, when offered, to hear the gospel and accept Christ.
So, you're saying that your response to the offer of the gospel is what makes you Christian. Presumably, you condider a positive response to the gospel to be in some sense more righteous that the refusal to accept it.
I fail to see how such an understanding of the gospel doesn't lead you to the conclusion that you became a Christian because you did the right thing&trade and that your unbelieving neighbour did the wrong thing&trade with respect to Jesus.
What differentiates you from your neighbour is the righteousness of your free choice not the grace of God to believe. You really did do something to get in on salvation that your neighbour hasn't done. According to your view the fact that you neighbour isn't a Christian is their own silly fault. This is just nonsense.
[ 28. September 2006, 06:54: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Popsted by Mudfrog: quote:
Not at all. It's just that I have taken up the opporuntiy, when offered, to hear the gospel and accept Christ.
So, you're saying that your response to the offer of the gospel is what makes you Christian. Presumably, you condider a positive response to the gospel to be in some sense more righteous that the refusal to accept it.
I fail to see how such an understanding of the gospel doesn't lead you to the conclusion that you became a Christian because you did the right thing&trade and that your unbelieving neighbour did the wrong thing&trade with respect to Jesus.
What differentiates you from your neighbour is the righteousness of your free choice not the grace of God to believe. You really did do something to get in on salvation that your neighbour hasn't done. According to your view the fact that you neighbour isn't a Christian is their own silly fault. This is just nonsense.
My acceptance of the gospel is not what makes me a Christian. The grace of God and the cleansing blood of Jesus makes me a Christian. My response is simply to accept it. The acceptance doesn't make the grace efficacious, it just 'accepts' it. It's a passive thing.
There is no righteousness in accepting the gift.
If I buy a Christmas present for my sons it's because I want to buy the present. I wrap it, label it, put it under the tree. It is there for them to have. The unwrapping of the present doesn't create the present. It doesn't make them better sons, or more deserving. They simply did the appropriate thing - accepting the present that was bought with my money, my decision, my effort. They contributed nothing to the present whatever and the present is still available to them even if they choose not to accept it and open it later - or even not at all.
The provision or monetary value of the present is not enhanced by the unwrapping.
Neither is the gift worthless, as far as I am concerned, if the child refuses to open it - 'receive' it.
My accepting the gospel is not a righteous act, it is simply the apporopriate response to the gift of grace. My accepting the gospel does not prove me to be more righteous than the person who does not accept it. This is because the gift was offered to us both as equal sinners and because God is no respecter of persons.
After my conversion, he is a sinner - though always the potential recipient of grace.
After my conversion, I am still a sinner - saved by grace.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Mudfrog said: quote:
My accepting the gospel is not a righteous act, it is simply the apporopriate response to the gift of grace.
So, the exercise of faith isn't righteous, just appropriate. Verses please. Likewise, unbelief isn't unrighteous, merely inappropriate. Again, verses please.
ISTM, that this appropriate/inapproriate notion is a completely new notion. I can't think of anywhere in Scripture where the sin of unbelief is described as merely inappropriate rather than unrighteous.
[ 28. September 2006, 08:17: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
