|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The background of Calvinism
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
It's worse than unfair, it's diabolical, (and I am not being metaphorical with that adjective). It presents God as capricious, not merciful. It sets him up as an arbitrary tyrant, little better than Stalin deciding whom he will both save and condemn.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Predestination is not the doctrine of the early Church, it comes from Augustine.
I never heard anyone claim that Augustine wrote Romans or Ephesians before. I always rather thought it was Paul,
quote:
The Church has always taught that God so loved the world, all of it, every person, and calls all to salvation
That's not denying predestination, that's denying the other bits of the tulip.
quote:
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
Which, depending on how you define "free will" is not neccessarily incompatible with predestination.
In the providence of God the list of all those written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world turns out to be exactly the same as the list of all those who call upon the name of the LORD and are saved.
And some would hope (though the church as a whole never taught) that everybody's name is on the list.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Myrrh asserts that; quote:
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
Not if you're willing to go back as far as the authors of the O & NT scriptures it hasn't.
The Jews have always taught free will, it was established thinking at the time of Christ and, from Christ's words, don't you think it would be a very stupid God that sent prophets to those he'd already damned to hell...
Hmm, so if Christ is everyone that is hungry or naked or in prison does that mean God has damned Christ to eternal hell if some of those are predestined to it?
Myrrh
p.s. and doesn't Christ's words I quoted show that He taught their was salvation before his coming?
Myrrh
[ 18. September 2006, 22:21: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Thanks, Jengie Jon. I will try the two 'Armchair Theologian' books. I think that between them, my questions will be answered.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's worse than unfair, it's diabolical, (and I am not being metaphorical with that adjective). It presents God as capricious, not merciful. It sets him up as an arbitrary tyrant, little better than Stalin deciding whom he will both save and condemn.
You sure can't justify that view of God from scripture, can you... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's worse than unfair, it's diabolical, (and I am not being metaphorical with that adjective). It presents God as capricious, not merciful. It sets him up as an arbitrary tyrant, little better than Stalin deciding whom he will both save and condemn.
For once, we totally agree.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Predestination is not the doctrine of the early Church, it comes from Augustine.
I never heard anyone claim that Augustine wrote Romans or Ephesians before. I always rather thought it was Paul,
Predestination is a 'Gnostic' concept going back to pre Christian times and there are several Jewish arguments against those in Alexandria, their predestination was the claim that they had 'spiritual natures', while others didn't. The Gnostic heresy generally in Christianity is that of thinking one has superior spiritual knowledge in Christ which is denied the rest of the Christians, who remain oiks. Augustine's predestination has that kind of Gnostic base because doesn't he say somewhere that even the baptised don't have a chance of salvation if they're not on the list? Which in effect is a denial that we're created in the image and likeness of God. His immediate influence on this was the Manicheans.
quote:
The Church has always taught that God so loved the world, all of it, every person, and calls all to salvation
quote:
That's not denying predestination, that's denying the other bits of the tulip.
Again, God would have to be really stupid to call all to salvation when he's only chosen some to be saved and already damned the rest to hell.
Hypocricy.
quote:
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
quote:
Which, depending on how you define "free will" is not neccessarily incompatible with predestination
In the providence of God the list of all those written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world turns out to be exactly the same as the list of all those who call upon the name of the LORD and are saved.
And some would hope (though the church as a whole never taught) that everybody's name is on the list.
But that's not Augustine's teaching, his predestination says God chose only some and the rest haven't the free will available to do anything about it.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It presents God as capricious, not merciful. It sets him up as an arbitrary tyrant
How do you know whether God's decisions are arbitrary?
All that is being claimed by most people in the Augustinian tradition is that they are God's decisions and they are implemented by God's actions. God is sovereign.
I get the feeling there is a bit of straw-mannerism going on here. People are taking the most extreme examples of "Calvinism", reacting to them, and dismissing the rest. Or not even taking real examples so much as the caricatures of them found in some Scottish novelists who believed themselves to have outgrown religion, or in odd US fundamentalist churches obsessed with racial purity and theonomy.
There is also a confusion between the eternal predestination of God (which from within time we cannot separate from his foreknowledge) and early modern ideas of philosophical determinism, which are not at all neccessary to the idea of predestination.
Also a confusion as to what is meant by "free will". Its very hard to pin down. Some people seem to use the phrase to establish the idea of an immaterial personality "in the driving seat" of our physical bodies, whose will is unconstrained by physical reality but whose action is constrained. Hence the common idea that its not your fault if you do something because of yiour hormones, or even your genes, as if your genes weren't you. But I don't think any of the major Christian views on these subjects require us to believe that we are somehow demons parachuted into animal bodies (or that Jesus Christ was).
And surely most Christian views would accept that insofar as our "free will" (whatever it is) can effect the world, it is because God graciously chooses to will what we will, or at least to pewrmit what we will (which would be a sacrifical, kenotic, act on behalf of God)
If you believe God to be eternal and omniscient and omnipotent - which is right in the central tradition of Christian thoght about God - and you follow those ideas through you more or less inevitably end up with something like the Augustinian position or "Calvinian" or "Four Point Calvinism" or whatever.
Anyway the Reformed tradition is a big tent.
The pre-Reformation Augustinian view was held by all sorts of odd folk. Arguably by Anselm and St. Bernard. Since the Reformation people as different as Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, John Newton, Charles Spurgeon, Karl Barth, the Niebuhr brothers, Ian Paisley, Martin Lloyd-Jones, Billy Graham, JI Packer, the early Dutch Christian Democrats, the Campus Crusade for Christ, the apartheid regine in South Africa, the signers of the Barmen Declaration, have all been in some way part of that tradition. They don't all believe the same things!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
All that is being claimed by most people in the Augustinian tradition is that they are God's decisions and they are implemented by God's actions. God is sovereign. .........Also a confusion as to what is meant by "free will". Its very hard to pin down. [quote]
Christ's teaching is not of God as sovereign, but as father.
Very hard to pin down, but this is where the difference begins: Augustine's God is the creator of creatures only with the ability to obey or disobey and for their disobedience they were punished with death. There's no real free will in the beginning for Augustine, (and none after, since the progeny of these creatures are only capable of doing evil and not good until Christ came along when they had a chance to choose to do good or evil if baptised, although it actually didn't make any difference since only those who were predestined to be saved would be).
And if it doesn't matter what we do then the moral teachings of Christ are redundant, from this Augustine justified the use of violence, didn't he?
[quote]And surely most Christian views would accept that insofar as our "free will" (whatever it is) can effect the world, it is because God graciously chooses to will what we will, or at least to pewrmit what we will (which would be a sacrifical, kenotic, act on behalf of God)
That's how I think free will, our interaction with God, what's prayer if not that?, and, whether he graciously permits it or not.. there's a long standing tradition of arguing with God.
quote:
If you believe God to be eternal and omniscient and omnipotent - which is right in the central tradition of Christian thoght about God - and you follow those ideas through you more or less inevitably end up with something like the Augustinian position or "Calvinian" or "Four Point Calvinism" or whatever.
Not if you don't hold to Augustine's Original Sin scenario, but that we're created in image and likeness of God with free will in a dynamic relationship.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Skeptic
Shipmate
# 11799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If you throw each of them a rope and only one takes a hold of it, whose fault is it if the other drowns?
Oh, if it were only that easy. Imagine you're the drowning victim and countless people throw you a rope, but you can only pick one to save yourself. The worst of it is that most if not all of the ropes aren't going to help you. The closest rope is the one your parents picked so you'll likely pick that one. Of course, one alternative is to learn to swim and enjoy the water because maybe that's all there is.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How do you know whether God's decisions are arbitrary?
If we're talking about who gets into heaven and an omnipotent being, how can it be anything other than arbitrary? Is God forced to make decisions based on moral and ethical codes He didn't set? If it simply takes belief in God/Jesus to reach heaven, who decided that was good enough?
quote:
And surely most Christian views would accept that insofar as our "free will" (whatever it is) can effect the world, it is because God graciously chooses to will what we will, or at least to pewrmit what we will (which would be a sacrifical, kenotic, act on behalf of God)
How is it even considered free will when every decision has to go through an approval process by another sentient entity? If God can stop any decision I make at anytime, I am not in charge of anything.
Predestination and free will can not coexist. Free will is the ability to make unconstrained decisions. If the decisions have already been made or are known, they can't be changed. If they can't be changed, it's a constraint.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Predestination doesn't preserve God's sovereignty, it denies it. The scriptures say that God is not willing that any should perish. Now, if salvation is entirely up to God, and yet some perish, then there must be some reason that is more powerful than God that prevents them from being saved.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Myrrh suggested:
quote:
The Jews have always taught free will, it was established thinking at the time of Christ
The teaching of Pharisaic Judaism of the first century, as I have heard her taught, was that all Israel has a share in the life to come. In fact angels were stationed at the gates of hell to snatch away any Jew who inadvertantly wandered there. Any Jews on the ship who can confirm this?
Now, Jesus contradicted this sharply when he stated that, though children of Abraham, those Pharisees were not children of God since if they had been, they would have accepted his (Jesus') testimony as to his identity and mission.
Thus, Judaism taught a form of exclusive 'universalism'..as well as election. You just had to be a Jew or Jewish proselyte. Christ taught neither of those things if we accept a face value reading of the gospels.
What did he teach? well, compassion, forgiveness, mercy, I especially like the womwn taken in the 'very act' of adultery story. Above all, he taught hope.
In the OT do we not see God's heart when he says: "All day I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and rebellious people."?
To me, the problem we have trying to second guess God on the issue of predestination ceases when we see him as a parent desperately seeking reconciliation with wayward children.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The Scripture says that God wants all men to be saved.
Predestination says different: that God wants some men to be saved.
If God wants all men to be saved then the atonement must be unlimited - God loved the world and Christ died for that world. The church is that body of people who, from out of all the potential converts (the entire world), have actually taken up the offer, by mental assent leading to prevenient grace, which then leads to saving grace.
As the hymn says:
Guilty, vile and helpless we;
Spotless Lamb of God was he;
Full atonement, can it be?
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!
[ 19. September 2006, 06:52: 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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Scripture says that God wants all men to be saved.
Where?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
How is this unfair?
Are you serious?
Look, God is leaving some people to rot in hell, who are no worse then the ones he has chosen.
Or, if you look at it the other way, God is saving people who totally deserve to burn in hell but leaving others.
I honestly don't understand why you don't find that unfair.
The wages of sin is death. If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
1 Tim 2:4.
[ETA: reply to Numpty's question]
[ 19. September 2006, 07:04: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Scripture says that God wants all men to be saved.
Where?
...'God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.'
1 Tim 2 v 4
'He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.'
2 Peter 3 v 9
--------------------
"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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
Look, let me put it this way.
You and six of your mates freely conspire to rob a bank. You all get your shotguns, each of you shoots several guards in the heist (it's a big bank, run with me on this) and you get caught attempting to make your escape.
At your trial, you're all condemned to life imprisonment, but at the last minute the judge says "Hang on, you're all guilty as hell but I'm letting all six except for you, Numpty, go free. Just because I can, I accept that none of them are better than you but I want to show my mercy, and I realise that that leaves you screwed but that's tough shit."
You're saying you would honestly think that was fair and loving towards you?
[ 19. September 2006, 07:09: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Mugfrog, it is you who limits the atonement by suggesting that, in and of itself, it does not have the power to save. The atonement, according to your view, needs somethimg else to make it work. In other words God needs you to save yourself; you don't need God to save you. God needs you to 'complete' an atonement that isn't fully and intrinically effectatious: it needs the superaddition of your faith (something that doesn't come from God) to 'activate' it. That's works - yes it's a Gucci work - but it's works whatever way you look at it.
You suggest that faith is intrinisc to humanity it is a 'free-floating' capacity that each human possesses and can potentially use to 'activate' an inadequate atonement.
I suggest that the atonement itself purchased the blessing of faith so that God can freely distribute that faith - a direct benefit of the atonement - to those whom he chooses so that they might then put that faith in the atonement as that which saves them from start to finish.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Greyface
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Any religion or religious tradition that proposes God's naked, utterly inscrutable, irrational and amoral sovereign will is very dangerous .... psychologically, politically or both. (I am not only thinking hyper-Calvinism here, or even just Christian).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I've saved Greyface's post; it encapsulated nicely most of my misgivings about Calvinism. Thanks Greyface, I find that pretty compelling.
It's been roaring around in quite a few threads recently, this notion of an inscrutable, capricious God. There's this quote from "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" which always sets these boundaries in place for me.
"(re Aslan). He's not Safe. But he is Good."
In essence I think we have somehow to pick the bones out of that dilemma. The bone-picking done by Calvin (and predecessor Augustine) always seems to go too far for me.
Thanks to Callan's fertile imagination, I think I'm now categorising myself as a weak Augustinian. But that will probably change. I do believe grace is available to help me in every choice I make, and also to help me when I make stupid ones. "Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace that fear relieved. How precious did that Grace appear, the hour I first believed."
Total autonomy and total predestination seem to me to be equal and opposite errors, with the truth somewhere in the middle. But where? Ay, that's the rub ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
<Error correction>
The Aslan quote should say "Tame" I think, which actually makes the point stronger. God is not "caged".
--------------------
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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Barnabas, you were right the first time. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Chapter 8, verse... erm, it doesn't have verse numbers ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
Look, let me put it this way.
You and six of your mates freely conspire to rob a bank. You all get your shotguns, each of you shoots several guards in the heist (it's a big bank, run with me on this) and you get caught attempting to make your escape.
At your trial, you're all condemned to life imprisonment, but at the last minute the judge says "Hang on, you're all guilty as hell but I'm letting all six except for you, Numpty, go free. Just because I can, I accept that none of them are better than you but I want to show my mercy, and I realise that that leaves you screwed but that's tough shit."
You're saying you would honestly think that was fair and loving towards you?
OK, so let me get this straight. If God didn't let anyone off the hook, that'd be fair. We're all sinners; we all deserve Gehenna.
If God lets everyone off the hook, that'd be fair. We're all sinners; no-one deserves salvation more than another therefore everyone receives salvation.
But, if God decides that he will save certain sinners - people who by very nature are hostile to him and would never choose him without his assistance - he is being unfair.
Your problem is simple: you don't understand the gravity of sin; the hostility of the sinner's heart; or the nature of God's justice.
[ 19. September 2006, 08:10: 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:
Mugfrog, it is you who limits the atonement by suggesting that, in and of itself, it does not have the power to save. The atonement, according to your view, needs somethimg else to make it work. In other words God needs you to save yourself; you don't need God to save you. God needs you to 'complete' an atonement that isn't fully and intrinically effectatious: it needs the superaddition of your faith (something that doesn't come from God) to 'activate' it. That's works - yes it's a Gucci work - but it's works whatever way you look at it.
You suggest that faith is intrinisc to humanity it is a 'free-floating' capacity that each human possesses and can potentially use to 'activate' an inadequate atonement.
I suggest that the atonement itself purchased the blessing of faith so that God can freely distribute that faith - a direct benefit of the atonement - to those whom he chooses so that they might then put that faith in the atonement as that which saves them from start to finish.
I am not a total Arminian in that I do not believe that I can simply decide to be a Christian and then use the capacity of my own faith to accept the atonement.
I am a Wesleyan (As is The Salvation Army) in that I believe in total depravity. I believe therefore in prevenient grace which is where grace is given in order to believe. It is a work of God that precludes any effort or merit on our part. He works through moral law, through the wiutness of others, through the conviction of sin and the convincing of the need of a saviour. This grace, available to all, can be rejected or ignored, but is necessary to bring someone to repentance and saving faith.
Any comment on the verses i quoted?
[ 19. September 2006, 08:15: 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
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
Why do you want to pitch grace and faith against each other MT Tomb? As if trusting christ is something we can brag about unless we only do it because God has forced us.
Faith is not a work - its just the means by which we obtain what Jesus has done. As an analogy if someone offers you a million pounds which thay have earned through there hard work you can accept it or refuse it - but the person who earned the million pounds has done the work, you are much better off if you accept but you can hardly brag that you are better off because of your own virtue or hard work.
My understanding of scripture is that faith and grace are always on the same side pitched against work.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
Look, let me put it this way.
You and six of your mates freely conspire to rob a bank. You all get your shotguns, each of you shoots several guards in the heist (it's a big bank, run with me on this) and you get caught attempting to make your escape.
At your trial, you're all condemned to life imprisonment, but at the last minute the judge says "Hang on, you're all guilty as hell but I'm letting all six except for you, Numpty, go free. Just because I can, I accept that none of them are better than you but I want to show my mercy, and I realise that that leaves you screwed but that's tough shit."
You're saying you would honestly think that was fair and loving towards you?
OK, so let me get this straight. If God didn't let anyone off the hook, that'd be fair. We're all sinners; we all deserve Gehenna.
If God lets everyone off the hook, that'd be fair. We're all sinners; no-one deserves salvation more than another therefore everyone receives salvation.
But, if God decides that he will save certain sinners - people who by very nature are hostile to him and would never choose him without his assistance - he is being unfair.
Your problem is simple: you don't understand the gravity of sin; the hostility of the sinner's heart; or the nature of God's justice.
But this is OT atonement.
You now have to fit Jesus into this - the One who alone has purchased the freedom that can be given to undeserving sinners.
Are you saying that his desath was only efficacious (love that word) for the few? If there is any power in the cross to save even one sinner, there is surely enough to save all.
The only thing to do is repent - or does God do that for us as well?
--------------------
"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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Your problem is simple: you don't understand the gravity of sin; the hostility of the sinner's heart; or the nature of God's justice.
Explain yourself. This is just a put-down similar to "Oh well, you don't believe so you can't possibly understand."
Show me how the gravity of sin or the hostility of the sinner's heart (which according to you is entirely the fault of God's sovereign will either by direct action or omission) has the slightest possible bearing on why God will arbitrarily condemn some but not others to Hell on the basis of nothing they've done. The deserved punishment is not the point of contention here, it's the limited and arbitrary nature of mercy you claim that we're attacking.
The nature of God's justice? I don't know what you're getting at. Explain.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Greyface asked: quote:
Show me how the gravity of sin or the hostility of the sinner's heart <snip> has the slightest possible bearing on why God will arbitrarily condemn some but not others to Hell on the basis of nothing they've done.
(1) Without God's intervention everyone would be lost: this is because sin is serious.
(2) With God's universal intervention all would be saved: this is universalism which even Arminians claim to reject. This theological concept has no appreciation of the gravity of sin or the wrath of God.
(3) With God's particular intervention some are saved. This is limited atonement or, more accurately, it is particular redemption. This doctrine says that without God's grace a sinner cannot choose him and will simply be to left in their innate, default hostility toward him.
quote:
The nature of God's justice? I don't know what you're getting at. Explain.
God is both just and the one who justifies. He is the one who metes out punishment for sin and he is the one who dispenses grace to undesverving sinners. If you wish to raise moral objections against God because he is free to be gracious to whoever he likes, then go for it. Jesus told parables about people who take the moral high ground over God.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You see, this is where I struggle with the whole thing. I can understand all perishing being fair and just - it's after all what we deserve if Jesus had never died. I can understand all being saved being just and fair - the justice of God in terms of the wages of our sin is satisfied through the death of Jesus and all benefit equally so it is fair. But what I don't get is not so much the some being saved bit but rather its corrollary: that some will be damned not because they are intrinsically worse than those who are saved or perform actions different from those who are saved but simply because God doesn't want to do it. Now, that in my book ain't fair or just.
[code]
[ 19. September 2006, 09:15: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Mudfrog said: quote:
But this is OT atonement.
I don't think it is.
quote:
You now have to fit Jesus into this - the One who alone has purchased the freedom that can be given to undeserving sinners.
You are right to see that the atonement can be limited in either one of two ways: (1) It can be limited in terms of recipient, or (2) it can be limited in terms of salvific efficacy.
You suggest that it is limited in terms of salvific efficacy. You claim that Jesus died for everyone and yet you refuse to accept that salvation is universal; therefore teh atonement is defective (limited) in some way without the willful addition of faith by a third party, namely the recipient of salvation.
I suggest that the atonement is limited (particular) in terms of recipient. I claim that Jesus' death is effective for those who believe (see John 3.16) but not for those who do not believe (not because it does not cover them but because they have no faith in it). I also suggest to you that the faith that the subject of salvation puts in the atonement was purchased by Christ for the believer on the cross. Saving faith is a blessing that is dispensed by God to the sinner as one of the benefits of the atonement.
Therefore I maintain that the atonement is unlimited in efficacy (through it Christ purchased literally everything) but is limited in terms of recipient. John 3.16 says that 'whoever believes in (Jesus) shall not perish'. So belief is the criteria. Not everyone believes; not everyone is saved. It is possible to perish: so no universalism. 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.
quote:
The only thing to do is repent - or does God do that for us as well?
Yes. Repent and believe. Both of which are gifts of God to be exercised by the believer.
[ 19. September 2006, 09:31: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But what I don't get is not so much the some being saved bit but rather its corrollary: that some will be damned not because they are intrinsically worse than those who are saved or perform actions different from those who are saved but simply because God doesn't want to do it. Now, that in my book ain't fair or just.
Surely this is because we value our concept of fairness more highly than we value God's sovereign dispensation of grace. We allow our concept of what's fair to sully the glory of God's grace. Let me ask you a question: if God chose to save but one sinner from the mass of sinful humanity would it still be a gracious act?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Gracious, yes. Fair, no.
[ETA - you appear to seek to set up God's grace and His justice as opposed to each other where, IMO, they should not be]
[ 19. September 2006, 09:42: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
(1) Without God's intervention everyone would be lost: this is because sin is serious.
True and totally irrelevant to my question. Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
quote:
2) With God's universal intervention all would be saved: this is universalism which even Arminians claim to reject. This theological concept has no appreciation of the gravity of sin or the wrath of God.
You keep asserting this about your theological opponents without providing a shred of evidence that their disagreeing with you has anything to do with the gravity of sin. I will counter it on your own terms - do you believe that the gravity of sin is such that God's power and mercy could not overcome it universally if he so chose?
So that's another answer that has nothing to do with my question.
quote:
(3) With God's particular intervention some are saved. This is limited atonement or, more accurately, it is particular redemption. This doctrine says that without God's grace a sinner cannot choose him and will simply be to left in their innate, default hostility toward him.
Irrelevant again.
quote:
quote:
The nature of God's justice? I don't know what you're getting at. Explain.
God is both just and the one who justifies. He is the one who metes out punishment for sin and he is the one who dispenses grace to undesverving sinners.
Agreed and irrelevant to the question.
quote:
If you wish to raise moral objections against God because he is free to be gracious to whoever he likes, then go for it. Jesus told parables about people who take the moral high ground over God.
So what you're saying is, I'm disagreeing with you because I haven't grasped that the nature of God's justice is entirely arbitrary, and that might is right.
Oh, and the implication that anyone who disagrees with Calvin is taking the moral high ground over God is staggering in its arrogance.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Hmmm. There is a tension between the two; they're not contradictory in God's essential nature but I think that there is a tension between them in terms of God's dealings with that which is unholy (i.e. anything but himself). Paul was careful to argue that God is both just and the justifier: an argument that is an attempt to reconcile to apparently contradictory dispositions within the Godhead, namely wrath and mercy.
[ 19. September 2006, 09:49: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
And... I would really, really like you to explain the quotes from St Paul and St Peter in non-universalist Calvinist terms.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Greyface asked: quote:
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die. The real scandal is that God saves any, not that he saves some.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
I wrote this some time ago as a bit of a critique of Calvinism :
According to Calvinist Arthur Pink :
1. Everything is according to the divine decree.
2. These decrees are inexorable.
3. God decrees that man should sin.
4. Man sins, but it is his sole responsibility19
This line of reasoning is at best bizarre and at worst blasphemous. It declares that God created us to sin then held us responsible for it. Why on earth, one may ask, is God not responsible for it? The answer will almost invariably be scripture declaring that God is Holy or God is Righteous. It seems that Calvinists want to have their cake and eat it. They attempt to hold God responsible for everything, and then say he
isn’t responsible for Sin. They attempt to say that man has no libertarian freedom and yet is responsible for sin!
If we may, for a moment step out of the confusing arena of theology and move this
into the legal ground whence Calvinism came from.
Let us suggest that a Professor creates a robot that has some form of consciousness.
He programs this robot to perform certain tasks, one of which is to kill the prime
minister. The robot, although in its consciousness believing itself to have libertarian
free will actually has no such thing, as its creator programmed its actions before its
creation. The robot carries out the assassination of the prime minister and is caught and arrested. Who do the courts blame and punish? The professor denies all responsibility, as although he programmed the robot to perform certain tasks, it was the robot – not him, who actually performed the action. Would this defense hold up?
Of course not, such a notion is ridiculous. However when such absurdities are required to hold up ones theology, otherwise rational people are prepared to take such nonsense as ‘gospel’ truth.
J.I. Packer suggests “Compatibilism”, the belief that the seemingly mutually exclusive doctrines of human responsibility and Gods total control can’t be resolved by us, but are easily resolved in the mind of God. Does this help the situation in the slightest? Unfortunately for Packer, it does not seem to be the case. As C.S. Lewis
noted:
"...If it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself,
instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all
worlds and for all agents. "All agents" here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This
is no limit to His power."
Secular philosopher of free will John Kane wrote:
1. The existence of alternate possibilities (or the agents power to do otherwise) is a
necessary condition for free will (and thus, moral responsibility).
2. Determinism is not compatible with alternate possibilities. (It precludes
the power to do otherwise)
As Lewis noticed, it has been the traditional Christian understanding that God cannot
do the “intrinsically impossible”. It is simply not helpful, for example, to suggest that
God, being omnipotent – can create a square circle. Some Christians are willing to
suggest that this is just ‘one of those things’ that is a paradox and should be left up
to God. Simply put, this is a tragic cop-out or a deliberate attempt to divert attention
from the logical difficulties of a given theology. If it is intrinsically possible for
humans to be morally responsible and God to have pre-ordained all things then it is
just as impossible for God to perform as it is ‘the least of his creatures’. In this
case, let us look at these premises:
1.Humans are morally responsible for their actions because they chose them
and could have done differently.
2.God pre-ordained all human actions before the foundation of the world.
Are these two in flagrant contradiction of each other? Clearly so. In which case, it is
an intrinsic impossibility for humans to be free/responsible and for God to have preordained
their actions. It simply will not do for Packer and others of a Calvinistic bent to suggest that its truth is currently hidden from us, but it is possible for God. The idea of compatabilism is confusing the illusion of free will with actual free will. Just because one can entertain the idea of making a different choice, does not mean thatone has free wil l. The ability to perform hypothetical thought experiments does not
mean one has free will. Again, Lewis illustrates:
“If you choose to say “God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it” you have not succeeded in saying anything about God : meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix the two other words ‘God can’”
Is this not exactly what the Calvinist interpretation requires? Is this not exactly what
Packer does? For this reason alone, Calvinism carries at least one intrinsic impossibility. As Hobbes claimed, if “our good or evil deeds were caused by our characters, and God had made us the way we were, then the ultimate responsibility
for our actions would be God’s, not ours” 23 The Calvinist has been especially keen to
emphasize just how much God despises our sin and our corrupt human nature, a
reasonable question to ask may be “Does god similarly despise Dogs for having the
nature of dogs? Is he ‘eternally offended’ by them the moment they fall out of their
mother’s womb, flea ridden and anguished? Perhaps, to paraphrase Calvin “there
are Labradors a span long in hell”? The suggestion is clearly absurd – and yet,
this exact level of absurdity is required to perpetuate the Augustinian/Calvinist
interpretation of Biblical theology.
Pinnock states the problem clearly: “Packer is just pulling the covers over the incoherence of what he says. On the one hand God determines everything; on the other hand we also act and
are responsible. If God controls it all, how can you hold people responsible for what you do? But he says it’s compatible. He says it’s a
mystery. So Packer is trying have a libertarian view of freedom — we’re responsible for what we do — without denying that God determines everything.
We’re just saying, “You can’t.” It’s just a contradiction. And there’s no reason to think it isn’t a contradiction for God. How does he know God can work it out? He’s just stating it. We think it’s a fallacy of his theology. We agree about mystery, but it shouldn’t be used to cloak incoherence.”
It may well be the case that God does create conscious “clay” or “robots” and then
chooses to damn them or elect them to the heavenly realm on the basis of a whimsical decree. God is perfectly free to do this, however, let us make one thing very clear. If this is the case – humans are not responsible for their sin. If Romans 9 literally does talk of individual salvation and damnation (which I do not believe to be the case) then I am afraid to say Paul’s logic is horribly flawed. Unlike clay, humans are conscious sentient beings, while it may be perfectly reasonable for a potter to do
whatever he likes with clay, it is not the same thing at all to suggest that its perfectly reasonable that God should do whatever he likes with his creation (that is, if he is ‘good’ – by his very own standards of goodness). If I were to create a sentient form of life, would I have the right to treat it as I please simply because I
created it? Possibly, but I could not, in any real sense of the word still call myself
“good”. Similarly, if God clearly and explicitly does something “bad” it simply will not
do to say “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”
I certainly don’t believe Paul intended this to be interpreted as a license for God to
do anything he pleases and dub it righteousness; instead we should look for a way to
interpret this as righteous within biblical guidelines. As Channing said :
"It will be asked with astonishment, how is it possible that men can hold these
doctrines and yet maintain God's goodness and equity? What principles can be more
contradictory?". I find it difficult to disagree with him on this point.
quote:
Mark 12:29-31
” And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our is one Lord: And thou shall love the Lord thy with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.
There is none other commandment greater than these.”
“ …it is not psychologically possible, not even logically possible, to love God with all
one’s heart, to love one’s neighbor as oneself, and simultaneously to believe in the
Reformed doctrine of [reprobation].”
As you can see, Talbott suggests that it is a logical impossibility to both love God
with all your heart and mind and loving your neighbour as yourself while believing
the reformed doctrines.
This is a bold claim and needs further investigation. Firstly, we need to define what
loving our neighbours as ourselves may look like. Talbott uses the example of his
daughter, this is, I think a useful example. The love of a parent for their child
(certainly far more than any romantic love) is certainly the closest we can come to nderstanding what loving somebody else as much as we love ourselves. What would this love look like? Could we define this in anyway?
Talbott agrees that there is a big difference between the love we have for each other
and the love we have for God. The love we have for each other is improving, we wish
to improve each other and put each other in better situations. A parent who loves
their child will wish for the best possible position in life for their child (whatever they
perceive that position to be). Our love of God is simply an appreciation of who he is
and what he has done, is doing and will do in the future.
Now the problem becomes apparent. How can I honestly love my neighbor as myself (desiring the very best for them) and love God for what he is doing when he is consigning a neighbor I have grown to love as myself to damnation? The question is Hypothetical, because I will be the first to admit that in this lifetime I will never love all of my neighbors as I love myself. However, the question is still important.
Let us suppose that I have several children and I truly do love them all as I love myself. If I believed the reformed doctrines and one of these children of mine was an adamant unbeliever how could I possibly continue to love them and love God? How could I have gratitude and love for a God who purposefully condemned someone who
I loved as myself? I may as well say how could I love a God who purposefully condemned me. Is this a possibility? Calvinists do not appreciate this line of reasoning, Piper seems disinterested in the logical argument, preferring to concede it as raw emotionalism, he says:
“I have three sons…….I pray that Karsten Luke become a great physician of the soul,
that Benjamin John become the beloved son of my right hand in the gospel, and that Abraham Christian give glory to God as he grows strong in his faith. But I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for his sons. And,
though I think I would give my life for their salvation, if they should be lost to me, I
would not rail against the Almighty. He is God. I am but a man.”
Effectively, Piper simply says he will stop loving his son as he loves himself if this
situation arose, therefore breaking the commandment of Mark 12:29-31. It seems to
be the case that if the reformed doctrines of reprobation and election are true then
God is asking us to complete a logical impossibility.
Trusting God?
The final and most assuredly bizarre thing about Calvinism is that it hoists itself by its own petard. If God truly isn’t “good” as we would define it and is so far above our understanding that he is free to do a great many evil things while denying his responsibility for them – why trust him for salvation? If Calvinist theology is true, God is quite prepared to deceive the great majority of mankind by sending them
false prophets and religions, why should this not be the case with Christianity and the Bible? It may well be the case that Christianity is simply his crowning glory of deception. The feelings of assurance or ‘god signs’ that we feel could easily be perfect deceptions in his plan to damn all humanity. In fact, damning the Christians
– especially Calvinist Christians, those who felt safe from his wrath seems very viable. As Talbott notes “For unless we can be confident that it is God's nature to love everyone, we can never have a well-grounded confidence that he in fact loves
us”. So long as we believe that God is in the business of deceiving people, how can we have good reason to trust the Bible? Quite to the contrary, we would have every reason to believe the opposite. As Macdonald said quote:
“if John said, ‘God is light, but you cannot see his light; you cannot tell, you have no notion, what light is; what God means by light, is not what you mean by light; what God calls light may be horrible darkness to you, for you are of another nature from him!’ Where, I say, would be the
good news of that?”
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Greyface asked: quote:
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die.
Why do I feel as though I'm talking to somebody speaking another language that looks like English but has all the words meaning something else, here?
Is God's choice of whom to save arbitrary or not? You seem to have argued from the beginning, that it is. Are you changing your mind?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Greyface asked: quote:
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die. The real scandal is that God saves any, not that he saves some.
Define `deserve'.
If I understand correctly, we are born in a fallen state. So we `deserve' to perish merely by being born?
That seems an odd use of the word `deserve'. Surely a new-born baby doesn't `deserve' anything?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
quote:
Surely this is because we value our concept of fairness more highly than we value God's sovereign dispensation of grace.
No MT it because we value God fairness and character (his name) as highly as we value his power and might (his arm).
I understand why Calvinists are so attracted to Calvanism as it presents God as All-mighty and sovereign, which he is, but it does so at the expense of his character. Jesus IS the lion of Judah (almighty) but he is also the lamb who was slain.
I think however that the way Calvinists (certainly of the strong type) view God is actually too small. Its not beyond human capacity to manufacture Robots - in a few hundred years we may be able to manufacture Robots that can almost think and act like humans and we could program some to trust us and some to hate us and we could be good to the ones that trusted us and we could punish the ones that hated us and we would be almost like the Calvinist "God" ourselves.
What God actually does is far more wonderful that. He creates beings in his own image, gives them freedom to make their own choices (both good and bad) and delegates power. And God still manages to achieve all the purposes he wants to achieve - this takes far more wisdom, intelligence and character than merely being the programmer of robots. God himself (although he could overpower us anytime he wanted to because he is All-powerful) chooses not to because he wants us to have real freedom. That is why Jesus in Revelation stands at the door and knocks - he doesn't kick the door down.
That is why in Galatians we are told to "be led by the spirit" - passive, "live by the spirit "(active) and "keep in step with the spirit" (particpative)- God initiates our salvation and he works with us every step of the way but we need to trust him and co-operate with him - we aren't just "led by the spirit".
There are a few brief texts in some of Paul's letters that Calvinism offers the most natural and straightforward explanation of and I admit that. However there are other reasonable explantions of these passages - and Calvinism does not do justice to the overall tenor of scripture which portrays God as all good and loving as well as all powerful, a God who gives freedom (it is for freedom that Christ has set us free), a God who creates beings in his own image and even a God who delegates power and authority - in Revalation (e.g. 5:10) the saints sit on thrones.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
If that's the case then they don't deserve salvation either, so notions of fairness if salvation is withheld become meaningless.
What you're saying is that we can only 'deserve' something on the basis of sins of commission: which is pelagianism.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
Why do you want to pitch grace and faith against each other MT Tomb? As if trusting christ is something we can brag about unless we only do it because God has forced us.
Faith is not a work - its just the means by which we obtain what Jesus has done. As an analogy if someone offers you a million pounds which thay have earned through there hard work you can accept it or refuse it - but the person who earned the million pounds has done the work, you are much better off if you accept but you can hardly brag that you are better off because of your own virtue or hard work.
My understanding of scripture is that faith and grace are always on the same side pitched against work.
James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James 2:25
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
Myrrh - I knew as I was posting that I could get pulled up for over simplification and you are right! I tend to oversimplify because I'm too lazy to nuance everything I write.
In terms of salvation faith and grace are pitched against works in Paul's letters - I believe that faith and grace combined always lead to us becoming better people and doing good (indeed we have been predesitined to be conformed to the image of Jesus), but it is grace and faith combined that save us rather than our works.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Greyface asked: quote:
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die.
Why do I feel as though I'm talking to somebody speaking another language that looks like English but has all the words meaning something else, here?
Is God's choice of whom to save arbitrary or not? You seem to have argued from the beginning, that it is. Are you changing your mind?
For those that don't hold Augustine's Original Sin doctrine there is no state of 'all deserving to die because of being born in a total sinful nature'.
For those that do believe Augustine subsequent grace from God is arbitrary.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said: quote:
But this is OT atonement.
I don't think it is.
quote:
You now have to fit Jesus into this - the One who alone has purchased the freedom that can be given to undeserving sinners.
You are right to see that the atonement can be limited in either one of two ways: (1) It can be limited in terms of recipient, or (2) it can be limited in terms of salvific efficacy.
You suggest that it is limited in terms of salvific efficacy. You claim that Jesus died for everyone and yet you refuse to accept that salvation is universal; therefore teh atonement is defective (limited) in some way without the willful addition of faith by a third party, namely the recipient of salvation.
I suggest that the atonement is limited (particular) in terms of recipient. I claim that Jesus' death is effective for those who believe (see John 3.16) but not for those who do not believe (not because it does not cover them but because they have no faith in it). I also suggest to you that the faith that the subject of salvation puts in the atonement was purchased by Christ for the believer on the cross. Saving faith is a blessing that is dispensed by God to the sinner as one of the benefits of the atonement.
Therefore I maintain that the atonement is unlimited in efficacy (through it Christ purchased literally everything) but is limited in terms of recipient. John 3.16 says that 'whoever believes in (Jesus) shall not perish'. So belief is the criteria. Not everyone believes; not everyone is saved. It is possible to perish: so no universalism. 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.
quote:
The only thing to do is repent - or does God do that for us as well?
Yes. Repent and believe. Both of which are gifts of God to be exercised by the believer.
Firstly forgiveness has to be available becfore it can be accessed. Forgiveness isn't made to order - it's off the shelf. The whole world has been potentially redeemed, forgiveness is provided. God does not, as the scripture clearly states, want anyone to perish and therefore whoever wants to be saved can.
Secondly, can you tell me where in the Bible both repentance and belief are gifts of God?
I know that grace is the gift of God - not sure where I can read about repentance and belief being such a gift.
(I take it that belief for you = saving faith, because we are also told that the demons believe, and tremble. Does their belief come as a gift from God 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
John Spears, have you ever read Deuteronomy 30.6? quote:
6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
And now some questions: what does this verse say about man's ability to love God? Who makes that love possible? How is that love made possible? Who exercises that love? Who does the promise of that love extend to? What is the result of that love? Who benefits from the result?
[ 19. September 2006, 10:30: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If that's the case then they don't deserve salvation either, so notions of fairness if salvation is withheld become meaningless.
What you're saying is that we can only 'deserve' something on the basis of sins of commission: which is pelagianism.
Maybe; yet it was you that used the word `deserve' in a context of this sort, not me.
If you didn't, then your `deserve' is a misleading word, since it carries none of the connotations of its use in ordinary speech. Rather it is a Calvinist term-of-art that means ``can expect'':
``All can expect to perish''
is different from
``All deserve to perish''
where `deserve' has its plain-speech (i.e., `pelagian') meaning.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
