|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Calvinism the Asperger's Syndrome of Protestantism?
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
As someone who's almost universalist, I like the idea that salvation is God's business, not ours. So the upside of Calvinism is ok! But how does it feel to be irredeemably damned? And what's its purpose in God's plan? Or, as Article XVII of the Book of Common Prayer puts it:
So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
In times when people took priests and preachers seriously, this kind of arguement could seriously unhinge someone. It beggers belief that a religion claiming to be "good news" could perpetuate an arguement that God creates sentient creatures for the purpose of daming them to eternal torment, which is a logical outcome of the downside of Calvinism. Nowadays, if one is on the wrong end of such preaching, as Yerevan has said:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I've known a couple. They generally exit either calvinism or Christianity at great speed.
I did just that, as a teenager, when I was assured that I was bound for hell fire. To love God as Father, and trust Him, as Jesus taught us, is what Christianity should be about. To live in fear, inculcated by a religious system, is psychological abuse on the part of the purveyors of that message.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
So does that mean that God's grace has already effected our salvation and anyone who doesn't want that salvation must discard it or reject it or undo it in some way? (Just trying to make sure I understand the point you are making.)
Think about how introducing choice into salvation effects matters. The general assumption on this thread seems to be that "accepting grace" is an easy matter. But the human heart is ever wavering. It has its moments of doubt, and falls into outright revolt "against the Lord and against His anointed." The Arminian must always say to himself "Have I really accepted grace?"
I can be a vicious person, really, and am I really "accepting God's grace" when I am like that? The answer from the Holy Scriptures is that I am not. Does that mean I am damned? I simply don't think that's what the scriptures say. The Arminians here will probably deny it, for one hates to swallow a bitter pill, but in those moments God's grace is present, but my choice is not. If grace and choice must be present, then I must conclude that, from their reasoning, I am not saved.
And here we find a Gospel of fear, and here find horror stories about saints who die committing their first mortal sins in their whole lives being thrust into hell forever for their final moment of weakness. Have I accepted grace? Am I accepting it this moment? Am I accepting it enough? How about this moment? As these questions pile up one's spirituality becomes marked by a cycle of conversion experiences. One "comes to Christ" over and over again, or is shriven and falls, shriven and falls, over and over again like in medieval spirituality. Really it's no surprise at all that rebaptism becomes a controversy whenever Pelagianiam (or its poor sister semi-Pelagianism) is ascendent.
But Calvin says to all that, "It's not what we can do, but what Christ has done." The Bible says "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Calvinism is so comforting because he doesn't expect us to cling to Christ, but is certain Christ clings to us.
[ 19. July 2012, 12:27: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Zach, that entire argument depends on not only accepting grace at a point in time, but on accepting grace continuously.
Which seems like something of a straw man, because that doesn't resemble any notion of 'accepting grace' that I've come across.
EDIT: And also, the whole notion of treating behaviour as evidence of the ongoing acceptance of grace seems to be another straw man, because surely the entire point of grace is that it accepts the flaws in our behaviour as it's whole reason for existing.
It's perfectly possible to have a theology of accepting grace without adding a notion that grace, once accepted, will miraculously cause us to behave perfectly from then on.
[ 19. July 2012, 12:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Lordy Orfeo, you sure love accusing people of attacking stawmen, but don't seem to have any idea what a strawman argument actually is.
I only have the arguments proposed here, Orfeo, and no one here has mentioned a word of any concept of the perseverance of the saints. And really it isn't compatible with what has been argued, since that would be to say that one has a choice to accept grace at first, but on acceptance of that grace instantly loses forever any choice in rejecting it.
[ 19. July 2012, 12:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, it wouldn't say that at all. What you presented was not just about a later decision to reject grace, it was presented as a continuing requirement to positively accept.
If God forgives sins, then that quite readily includes forgiving the sin of not living in appreciation of his grace each and every day or moment - and that holds true regardless of which view of grace you hold.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
and no one here has mentioned a word of any concept of the perseverance of the saints.
Then why did you bring it up? Why did you talk about "am I accepting grace now" if no-one suggested there was a need to persevere in accepting grace?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Then why did you bring it up? Why did you talk about "am I accepting grace now" if no-one suggested there was a need to persevere in accepting grace?
The proposition here is that grace and choice is necessary for salvation. If choice is absent, then I conclude, according to the arguments here peddled, that salvation is absent.
People are so terribly desperate to defend free choice here, so really I would be astonished if anyone did play your line, since the conclusions are as I pointed out- God taking away free choice the moment one decided to accept grace.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would also add that the free choice crowd is in danger of a simplistic understanding of the human will. People say they believe something, and even believe they believe something, even if they really don't. Motivations can be wicked or confused. A human is as much a mystery to himself as his fellows are to him.
So whether or not one accepts grace is NOT a matter of certainty. There we are again, at that fearful Gospel. Have I really accepted? How can I know? I thought I accepted in the past, but I am not sure now...
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would be astonished if anyone did play your line, since the conclusions are as I pointed out- God taking away free choice the moment one decided to accept grace.
I completely fail to see why that's the conclusion. Once again I'll repeat: there's a fundamental difference between saying someone could withdraw their acceptance and saying someone must continuously reaffirm their acceptance. One gets divorced by filing for divorce, not by failing to renew a marriage vow.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So whether or not one accepts grace is NOT a matter of certainty. There we are again, at that fearful Gospel. Have I really accepted? How can I know? I thought I accepted in the past, but I am not sure now...
Whether or not God has granted grace, apart from any choice or acceptance, isn't a matter of certainty either! There we are again, with fear. Did God really pick me? How can I know? I thought I was one of the elect, but I am not sure now...
In other words, your theology suffers from the EXACT same "fear flaw", merely with a different set of questions - about whether God chose, rather than the individual.
15-all, your serve...
[ 19. July 2012, 13:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I completely fail to see why that's the conclusion...
I know you don't, but let's define our terms. What is sin? Is it not, in the very least, a rejection of God's grace? So isn't the malice of a person itself a rejection of God's grace, and is not a person rejecting grace with every instance of malice towards his fellow man?
quote:
Whether or not God has granted grace, apart from any choice or acceptance, isn't a matter of certainty either! There we are again, with fear. Did God really pick me? How can I know? I thought I was one of the elect, but I am not sure now...
In other words, your theology suffers from the EXACT same "fear flaw", merely with a different set of questions - about whether God chose, rather than the individual.
I would tell such a person that, according to the Holy Scriptures, the sacraments are certain signs of grace- Baptism and the Eucharist are God's decrees from Eternity.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is sin? Is it not, in the very least, a rejection of God's grace?
Um, no. It's a violation of God's law. The definition you just put forward doesn't make the slightest sense.
I think you basically just confused determination of guilt with sentencing...
[ 19. July 2012, 14:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Um, no. It's a violation of God's law. The definition you just put forward doesn't make the slightest sense.
Yeah, that's been your first and only judgment against every thing I have ever said in our every interaction.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Um, no. It's a violation of God's law. The definition you just put forward doesn't make the slightest sense.
Yeah, that's been your first and only judgment against every thing I have ever said in our every interaction.
Fine. Ask anyone else if your definition makes sense. It simply doesn't. You've basically just said "What is guilt? Isn't it the rejection of a pardon?", so I think I'm entitled to say that it's nonsense.
To be honest, Zach, most of the time that I start interacting you its because I think you've said something strange. The times that you say something sensible, there isn't the same need to explicitly point out that you've said something sensible. I suppose if you like I can start trailing around the board giving you a little thumbs up/encouragement when you say something rational.
[ 19. July 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It beggers belief that a religion claiming to be "good news" could perpetuate an arguement that God creates sentient creatures for the purpose of daming them to eternal torment, which is a logical outcome of the downside of Calvinism.
Yes, this is also my fundamental problem with Calvinism. How do we square 'God is love', 'God so loved the world...' etc. with what I understand to be the Calvinistic position, that some people have been selected by God for salvation and others for (eternal conscious torment) damnation?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I can see God allowing His creatures to make their own decisions. I can see God allowing His creatures to exist in the consequences of their own decisions. Much more difficult to get my head around the idea that He would design/create specific personalities specifically for damnation. It does seem wasteful, to say the least.
(A) I really don't think it's an accurate understanding, I think those who have held that view have arrived at it in error and without consideration of balancing material in Scripture -- and,
(B) If it is true, then I still think those who hold those views have not grasped a true/complete picture of the matter -- but it is God's right to have done things that way, if He so wills. Perhaps I will understand it better when I'm no longer bound to this life.
Either way -- in a sort of Daniel 3:16-18 spirit -- blessed be the name of the Lord.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Um, no. It's a violation of God's law. The definition you just put forward doesn't make the slightest sense.
Yeah, that's been your first and only judgment against every thing I have ever said in our every interaction.
Fine. Ask anyone else if your definition makes sense. It simply doesn't. You've basically just said "What is guilt? Isn't it the rejection of a pardon?", so I think I'm entitled to say that it's nonsense.
it makes perfect sense to me. what does NOT make sense to me is the idea of equating sin with guilt. sin is a state of being. it's not a legal determination. you may be entitled to say that you think something nonsense or disagree with it, but there are certainly others who do not find it nonsensical.
I don't personally think that sin is best defined as a rejection of grace, but it makes more sense to me than simply a legalistic definition of "sin is a violation of God's laws". THAT definition seems extremely limited and self evidently wrong.
I believe that grace exists the way God's love exists.. and we are all constantly in it. you don't "reject it" to make it go away. it's still there. "hell" is simply living in God's love when you don't want to.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You propose, Orfeo, the possibility of a person who accepts God's grace but refuses His Law. Which is rather self evidently false to me. But you accuse me of irrationality so often (and never of simply being wrong but rational) that I would be quite a bad case if only half of these accusations were true. So maybe what is self-evident to me is not much to take account of.
How do I know your constant accusations aren't true? For all I know, this could all be an illusion. I could be posting from a prison for the criminally insane right now. If I am so irrational, I just have no way of knowing. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You propose, Orfeo, the possibility of a person who accepts God's grace but refuses His Law.
What?!? I'm sure I would remember doing this...
quote:
How do I know your constant accusations aren't true? For all I know, this could all be an illusion. I could be posting from a prison for the criminally insane right now. If I am so irrational, I just have no way of knowing.
Or you could just be trapped in a philosophy program somewhere.
[ 19. July 2012, 16:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
First you insist there is such a great division between sin and rejecting grace, and now you are going to play dumb when I start working out the conclusions of the premises you have proposed. This is why arguing with you is generally so frustrating, Orfeo.
[ 19. July 2012, 16:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It beggers belief that a religion claiming to be "good news" could perpetuate an arguement that God creates sentient creatures for the purpose of daming them to eternal torment, which is a logical outcome of the downside of Calvinism.
Yes, this is also my fundamental problem with Calvinism. How do we square 'God is love', 'God so loved the world...' etc. with what I understand to be the Calvinistic position, that some people have been selected by God for salvation and others for (eternal conscious torment) damnation?
But there's the problem again of what precisly is meant by "Calvinism" -- that's not the Calvinistic position, that's a Calvinistic position (and some would say a hyper-Calvinistic position).
Any consideration of predestination should properly be done in context, and part of that context is a response to the pre-Reformation idea that one could never be sure one was good enough, had refrainsed from sin enough, hadn't messed it up or whatever. The problems come when that contextual framework is distorted. As PD said upthread:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have general come to the conclusion that Predestination is best treated as a doctrine which may be of 'sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort to godly persons' (Art. 17 of the 39) it really is not a matter for free for all speculation because sooner or later someone is going to be dopey enough to conclude they are predestined to damnation the 'Devil thereby thrusting them into desparation.' (Ibid)
As I have said, for the most part those of us in the "Calvinistic" tradition haven't had too much compunction about challenging various aspects of "Calvinism" ourselves, holding on to that which seems right and good and letting go of the rest.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
First you insist there is such a great division between sin and rejecting grace, and now you are going to play dumb when I start working out the conclusions of the premises you have proposed. This is why arguing with you is generally so frustrating, Orfeo.
I'm not playing dumb, I just could not see how you took the premise that sin is not the same as rejecting grace, and turned that into this other language.
Most importantly, I'm not clear on what "refusing his Law" means. Does that mean breaking his Law? If so then yes, of course I propose that possibility. That's what a Christian IS. It's a sinner who has accepted God's grace. If we hadn't broken God's law we wouldn't NEED grace. See Jesus Christ for the one known example of a human being who didn't require God's grace, because he was without sin.
If that's not what "refuses His Law" means, then you'll have to explain to me what "refusing" is. Denying that God's law exists or is valid?
You also asked me whether sin was at the very least rejecting God's grace. That struck me as a definitional question. If you'd asked me whether rejecting God's grace was a sin you would get a completely different answer, because that's a question about whether it's an example of a category. The answer to which is probably yes.
This is why wording is important Zach, and this is why your fondness for certain rhetorical flourishes makes you terribly hard to follow, even when you're sure what you're saying is self-evident and that anyone who doesn't agree is just being difficult for the sake of it. Much of the time my experience of interacting with you is that I initially thought I knew what you meant, only to find that I have to start from scratch halfway down when I discover you must have meant something different.
[ 19. July 2012, 16:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Correction: to avoid that particular conflict, let me redefine a Christian as "a sinner who has benefited from God's grace". Let's leave accepted out of it.
The point remains, though, that if a person is not a sinner, a person does not require grace. Jesus Christ was not in need of God's grace.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Correction: to avoid that particular conflict, let me redefine a Christian as "a sinner who has benefited from God's grace". Let's leave accepted out of it.
The point remains, though, that if a person is not a sinner, a person does not require grace. Jesus Christ was not in need of God's grace.
This is simply a complete botch from the very start. Jesus relied on God's grace more than anyone. His life is the life of one with utter reliance on grace alone. His death on the Cross is the moment when a Christian realizes that there is nothing else, no other hope whatsoever, but the grace of God.
[ 19. July 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Correction: to avoid that particular conflict, let me redefine a Christian as "a sinner who has benefited from God's grace". Let's leave accepted out of it.
The point remains, though, that if a person is not a sinner, a person does not require grace. Jesus Christ was not in need of God's grace.
This is simply a complete botch from the very start. Jesus relied on God's grace more than anyone. His life is the life of one with utter reliance on grace alone. His death on the Cross is the moment when a Christian realizes that there is nothing else, no other hope whatsoever, but the grace of God.
And it's at this point that I suggest we both go and pick up our New Testaments, do a thorough search for that mysterious word "grace" and see how it's actually used. Because off the top of my head I'm not thinking of ready examples of Jesus requiring God's grace. Being an agent of God's grace, certainly, but requiring it?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
For example, I find it difficult to reconcile the notion that Jesus life was one of reliance on grace with the notion of grace as God's "gift" to us. Romans 5 being perhaps one of the places where that notion comes from, but it is definitely how the word 'grace' has been most frequently been presented to me: it conveys that our salvation is freely given, rather than earned. We were given a state of being righteous when we didn't deserve it.
It obviously makes no sense to say that Jesus relied on God's free gift of salvation, as Jesus didn't require saving. He didn't require a gift of being made righteous, because he already was righteous.
Therefore when you talk about Jesus relying on God's grace, I have great difficulty in interpreting what you mean by the word grace. Relying on his relationship with God? Relying on his right standing with God? If the latter, then the key difference is that I've always been given to understand grace not merely as right standing, but as undeserved right standing. Jesus' right standing was thoroughly deserved.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You really need to contemplate what human life is. There is no life at all without the grace of God. God is the Creator and the Sustainer of all that is. Reliance on God is the whole point of the whole bible.
quote:
Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You really need to contemplate what human life is. There is no life at all without the grace of God.
In which case your proposition that sin is "rejection of grace" means... what, exactly? God provides life to sinners.
I honestly have no clue. You're using the word in a manner that is completely foreign to the normal salvation context I'm familiar with. And I'm still looking at it and thinking "yep, grace meaning a free undeserved gift works perfectly well in this context, emphasis on undeserved, therefore still doesn't make sense to me in the context of the thoroughly deserving Jesus Christ".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Anyone saying that one must accept grace to actually obtain salvation is making human choice a condition of salvation, and therefore saying that grace is NOT sufficient. Really it's a perfectly logical proposition assuming we use the real definitions of all the words involved.
In normal English usage:
- if somebody tells me that the change I've got in the pocket is sufficient to catch the bus they do not mean I do not need to pay the driver.
- if somebody tells me that we have sufficient food to feed twelve people that does not mean the people do not need to eat it.
- if somebody tells me that God's grace is sufficient to save us that does not mean that I do not need to accept it.
Points 1 and 2 are true of normal English usage aren't they? And therefore so is 3?
Oh, and it's an interesting quirk of rhetoric that whenever somebody says they're using the real definition of a word they're probably about to use a definition that contradicts every definition previously thought of.
quote:
Ah, we need to take account of human situations. "Can God save me, pastor?"
"God can, my child. But there's a nine out of ten chance that God doesn't want to. God prefers that you suffer infinite intolerable torment for his glorification."
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would tell such a person that, according to the Holy Scriptures, the sacraments are certain signs of grace- Baptism and the Eucharist are God's decrees from Eternity.
I worry that we may have been in this territory before in previous threads, but surely receiving Baptism and Eucharist are choices. One does not find people suddenly having received Eucharist because God decided to give it to them.
To say that receiving grace is no choice, but that the signs of grace are these sacraments, the receipt of which requires choice, seems to put you back on the "choice" side but simply by a different route. A human action is still required at some point.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is sin? Is it not, in the very least, a rejection of God's grace?
Are you speaking from within an Arminian understanding or a Calvinist understanding? Because surely within a Calvinist understanding God's grace, being irresistible, cannot be rejected?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Anyone saying that one must accept grace to actually obtain salvation is making human choice a condition of salvation, and therefore saying that grace is NOT sufficient. Really it's a perfectly logical proposition assuming we use the real definitions of all the words involved.
In normal English usage:
- if somebody tells me that the change I've got in the pocket is sufficient to catch the bus they do not mean I do not need to pay the driver.
- if somebody tells me that we have sufficient food to feed twelve people that does not mean the people do not need to eat it.
- if somebody tells me that God's grace is sufficient to save us that does not mean that I do not need to accept it.
Points 1 and 2 are true of normal English usage aren't they? And therefore so is 3?
Oh, and it's an interesting quirk of rhetoric that whenever somebody says they're using the real definition of a word they're probably about to use a definition that contradicts every definition previously thought of.
While I don't think that last remark is entirely fair to Zach, I would agree that he is latching onto a particular shade of meaning of the word "sufficient", the shade of meaning used in discussions in the field of logic (where requirements can be 'necessary' or 'sufficient'), and ignoring all the other shades of meaning of the word such as the ones you've demonstrated.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Arminian must always say to himself "Have I really accepted grace?"
No. You're projecting Calvinist scruples onto an Arminian way of thinking.
The Bible has no knowledge of really accepting grace. If you accept grace you've accepted it. That's it. Done, signed on the bottom line, sealed in the blood of the lamb. It is no longer I that sin but sin that dwells within me.
It is a matter of historical fact that Calvinists kept journals in which to try to determine whether they were assured of salvation or not. You may say that Arminians should have doubts about their salvation and Calvinists should not, the facts are otherwise.
quote:
Calvinism is so comforting because he doesn't expect us to cling to Christ, but is certain Christ clings to us.
It's hardly certain. There's a one out of ten chance Christ is clinging to you and a nine out of ten chance that out of your sin you are deluding yourself into thinking yourself one of the elect and will receive the just punishment for your presumption.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
Well done. You have just quoted a passage of Scripture that completely demolishes Calvinism.
God did all he could to enable the vineyard to bring forth good grapes. He expected the vineyard to bring forth good grapes. Therefore, if the word "predestination" describes God's activity, then God predestined the vineyard to bring forth good grapes. But it brought forth wild grapes!
How very strange! If the doctrine of reprobation is true, then that would mean that God had predestined the vineyard to bring forth wild grapes, because that is what happened. So why did the vineyard bring forth wild and not good grapes? Answer: because the vineyard (the house of Israel) resisted and rejected the grace of God. And it is for that reason that God judged them.
Furthermore, God calls us to "judge between him and his vineyard" - to see that his judgment is actually just, because it is NOT - I repeat NOT - based on an irresistable decree. That is the whole point of this passage. God is not responsible for the sin of the vineyard, either through neglect (infralapsarianism) or through deliberate decree (supralapsarianism), because he did all he could for that vineyard to produce a certain result, which it did not produce.
Ergo, God's grace can be resisted.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Because surely within a Calvinist understanding God's grace, being irresistible, cannot be rejected?
Even within a Calvinist understanding God does not save a person against their will. God works in a person's heart until they will want to accept Christ of their own free will.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Zach, let me try to explain where I'm coming from in less confrontational terms than I've used before. For a start, I'm not having a go at you personally; as I said earlier the chances are that you are a much better person than I am. But whenever anyone starts explaining Calvinist thought to me I shrink with horror as what should be the most heart warming theme ever (that God loves us freely and undeservedly) seems to turn into a chilling dogma (God deliberately created millions of humans with the express purpose of damning them for eternity).
Maybe this is where different personality types come in. I don't need something to be fully worked out in my mind in order to enjoy it; some do. If I take the best and most constant human love I have ever known, that of my mother, I would have to say I don't understand it. In fact, if I thought about it too hard, I would be tempted to the conclusion that she must be faking because I've been such a shit to her in the past. So I don't over analyse it, I just enjoy it.
To my mind Calvinism is a wonderful example of human logic being insufficient to comprehend the breadth and length and depth of the love of God. It seems to me to be a system that is logical, complete and self sustaining - and yet which misses the point completely. Maybe I'm just too thick to understand Calvinism properly, but I'm clearly not the only one who has very deep problems with this fragment of Christian thought.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well done. You have just quoted a passage of Scripture that completely demolishes Calvinism.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Zach, let me try to explain where I'm coming from in less confrontational terms than I've used before. For a start, I'm not having a go at you personally; as I said earlier the chances are that you are a much better person than I am.
The false modesty isn't making me forget what you said.
quote:
...seems to turn into a chilling dogma (God deliberately created millions of humans with the express purpose of damning them for eternity).
It's as much a problem for Arminianism- for there is still a God who creates people who He knows without a doubt he will cast into hell. God offers his grace, but they make room for human will by making it inefficacious!
Really, if Calvin is so vicious, accepting the premises but refusing to accept the consequences is worse.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Well done. You have just quoted a passage of Scripture that completely demolishes Calvinism.
The song of a vineyard is a metaphor on the attentive grace of God and human failure to live up to that grace, not a theological treatise on free will.
Though no doubt such a reading is convenient to your thesis, I see nothing in the text that indicates that it is particularly useful to your cause.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
By way of triple posting, the "condemning millions of millions" thing has nothing to do with Calvinism, which refuses to speculate about who and how many will be damned.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
By way of triple posting, the "condemning millions of millions" thing has nothing to do with Calvinism, which refuses to speculate about who and how many will be damned.
Unless the number is zero, you still have a problem.
Why? Because your fundamental stance becomes that grace is not offered to all. Despite your assertions that the contrary position suffers from similar problems about God knowing people will go to Hell, it simply isn't the same problem because God isn't directly controlling which ones. If grace IS offered to all, the fact that some people don't accept it doesn't come off anywhere NEAR as cruel as it being denied to some who desired it (and being foisted upon some who didn't).
[ 20. July 2012, 01:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It's the same problem Arminianism has. God sets up people He knows will fail, and then casts them into hell for eternity.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's the same problem Arminianism has. God sets up people He knows will fail, and then casts them into hell for eternity.
Nope. See the edit. There is a massive difference between being aware they will fail and setting them up to fail. Even if God foresees the future, that is NOT the same as ordaining it.
[ 20. July 2012, 01:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nope. See the edit. There is a massive difference between being aware they will fail and setting them up to fail. Even if God foresees the future, that is NOT the same as ordaining it.
Now you're just preaching the heresy of Pelagianism- you are saying it is possible for a human not to sin.
Though I figure you'll just accuse me of setting up a stawman for pointing out the implications of your argument.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
A little bit of hunting around the wonderful internet has brought me to this particular verse that seems to raise serious questions for Calvinism.
1 Timothy 2:4 says that God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth". (NIV)
If this is God's desire, and if, as Calvinism is asserting, it is ENTIRELY in God's power whether it happens or not, then it is utterly inconsistent with the notion that God predestines some to damnation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nope. See the edit. There is a massive difference between being aware they will fail and setting them up to fail. Even if God foresees the future, that is NOT the same as ordaining it.
Now you're just preaching the heresy of Pelagianism- you are saying it is possible for a human not to sin.
Though I figure you'll just accuse me of setting up a stawman for pointing out the implications of your argument.
But (1) it IS possible for a human not to sin, Jesus Christ and (2) that isn't remotely relevant!! If grace is available, sinning is something that can be rectified despite sinning being inevitable. The entire point is that with Calvinism you're not just making sinning inevitable, you're making eternal damnation for sinning inevitable and unavoidable.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The whole problem with Calvinism seems to stem from taking statements like "all sin" and "some will be saved" and not treating them as astute observations about the facts but as propositions of law.
When my local government states something like "around 15 people die on our roads each year", no-one would ever see that as a proposition of law. No-one thinks the government is aiming to bring about that result. You would be stunned if they went on to add: "We have a panel that determines each year's quota. To ensure that the quota is met, the panel also selects the victims with a view to maintaining a reasonable demographic spread. Previously, the results were not made public, but in the interest of fairness we have decided that people will be given 6 weeks advance notice via mail."
The Calvinist God has a panel.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
But (1) it IS possible for a human not to sin, Jesus Christ and
That is precisely the heresy of Pelagianism. Aside from Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
quote:
(2) that isn't remotely relevant!!
Not relevant? The helplessness of humans to avoid sin is irrelevant to a conversation about free choice and personal responsibility? Golly we really do frame this debate in very different manners.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The inevitability of sin has no direct bearing on the availability of grace - except for making a God who limits the availability of grace into a total bastard. But there is no CAUSAL link.
And what's this "aside from Jesus and Mary" bit?
We've just had a conversation like this:
ZACH: A human can't be sinless.
ORFEO: I can think of 1 sinless human.
ZACH: HERESY!! The correct answer is 2!
If Jesus and Mary are humans, the answer to "can a human being be sinless" is yes. It's perfectly simple. I don't know what twisted logic enables you to cite 2 sinless humans while declaring that it's impossible for a human to be sinless.
You appear to be stumbling inarticulately towards a proposition that those 2 particular humans had a special quality that enabled them to be sinless, a special quality that other humans lack and can't emulate, but that wasn't the question.
[ 20. July 2012, 02:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Suggesting that Jesus doesn't count as a human, I'm fairly sure THAT'S a heresy although I can't pull out the correct name for it off the top of my head. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
