|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Calvinism the Asperger's Syndrome of Protestantism?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But God foreknowing who will choose to tie the rope round their waist and Him giving people the ability to do it are two different things. Aren't they?
Yes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like to liken it to a person stuck at the bottom of a well. God throws down a rope and says, "Tie this around your waist, and I'll pull you up! Watch you don't bump against the sides!" Who does the pulling? God. Can we pull ourselves out? No. Do we have something to do? Yes. We have to tie the rope around our waist, and push off from the walls with our feet. An imperfect metaphor, as all are. But it allows for the fact that God is the one who saves us, not we ourselves, YET, there is something we must do; accept God's salvation, and cooperate with his work in us.
I've been away for the weekend and have thought about this metaphor a lot. I like it and wouldn't exactly argue with it, but it seemed to me that there was something missing.
I think from my perspective (as one who comes from the Reformed tradition), I would say that God doesn't throw down a rope to the person in the well. God says "I'm sending someone down to get you." That someone does indeed come down, and finds the person injured (from the fall into the well?) or weakened, and says "You'll have to hold on to me as we go up; here, I will help you hold on."
Still imperfect, but a little closer to me at least.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I ask, if any Calvinists are still willing to pop up in here, what Calvinism makes of the parable of the Prodigal Son?
This popped into my head partly because I once acted in a version of it. And the fact is that the son came back. Rather than being dragged back home by his father.
And so the call is often made, alluding to that parable, to 'come home'.
That simply doesn't seem to gel with a theology that leaves the whole thing entirely up to God.
I'd agree with Balaam that we would see the story as being primarily about the Father, not the son, and that the point of the story is that even though the son is, for a time, faithless to the father, the father is always faithful to the son, to the point of running to embrace him.
Beyond that, I would say that the son, "when he comes to himself," (that is to say, when he remembers who he is -- a child of his father) was drawn home, even if he didn't understand what that meant in full. Yes, he chose to come home, but that choice was anchored in his fundamental identity.
Of course, I would also point out that the parable of the prodigal son is grouped with the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, where the shepherd and the woman do indeed go in search of the lost and will not stop until the lost is found and returned to the fold/collection of coins.
Paradoxes aren't bad things.
--------------------
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 Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like to liken it to a person stuck at the bottom of a well. God throws down a rope and says, "Tie this around your waist, and I'll pull you up! Watch you don't bump against the sides!" Who does the pulling? God. Can we pull ourselves out? No. Do we have something to do? Yes. We have to tie the rope around our waist, and push off from the walls with our feet. An imperfect metaphor, as all are. But it allows for the fact that God is the one who saves us, not we ourselves, YET, there is something we must do; accept God's salvation, and cooperate with his work in us.
I've been away for the weekend and have thought about this metaphor a lot. I like it and wouldn't exactly argue with it, but it seemed to me that there was something missing.
I think from my perspective (as one who comes from the Reformed tradition), I would say that God doesn't throw down a rope to the person in the well. God says "I'm sending someone down to get you." That someone does indeed come down, and finds the person injured (from the fall into the well?) or weakened, and says "You'll have to hold on to me as we go up; here, I will help you hold on."
Still imperfect, but a little closer to me at least.
Does this leave us with the proposition that there are other wells with injured people that are just left there, then?
This is fundamentally what bothers me. The Arminian position (and indeed some others) see grace as being offered to all. The problem with Calvinism is that it sounds fine, indeed marvellous, so long as you are being universalist. But as soon as you start thinking along the lines that some are saved and some are not, the reason for this happening is simply that God left some people trapped down the well without the necessary assistance.
If the process is entirely God, and God always succeeds in his actions, the only logical conclusion is that people are not saved because God did not act.
[ 31. July 2012, 15:40: 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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If the process is entirely God, and God always succeeds in his actions, the only logical conclusion is that people are not saved because God did not act.
That is not the only logical conclusion. There are four-point Calvinists (hypothetical universalists) who would say that it may be that all are elected. There are Barthian Calvinists who, as a middle ground to five-point Arminianism and five-point Calvinism, would say that God has acted, entirely and with full success, in Christ -- that it is Christ who is eternally elect, and that all joined in him share in that eternal election.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is fundamentally what bothers me. The Arminian position (and indeed some others) see grace as being offered to all.
Which still doesnt explain why some accept that offer and some don't. Were they a little more spiritual? A little smarter? A little better?
quote:
If the process is entirely God, and God always succeeds in his actions, the only logical conclusion is that people are not saved because God did not act.
Well, if you take the Arminian route, you still have a God who creates the universe knowing full well that in doing so beings would be created who would ultimately reject him and end up in hell.
Either way you have some action of God in the depths of time that confine some subset of humanity to hell.
I don't think anyone has an answer to this. It's one of the paradoxes of faith. Basically the problem of Theodicy as it applies to salvation.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is fundamentally what bothers me. The Arminian position (and indeed some others) see grace as being offered to all.
Which still doesnt explain why some accept that offer and some don't. Were they a little more spiritual? A little smarter? A little better?
That's the nature of free will: there is no cause to explain why someone uses it one way or another, only after-the-fact rationalizations. We're free to choose whatever we feel like choosing based on whatever criteria we feel like using, which is why we're unique, individual humans and not robots. There is no relative merit involved in one choice compared to another, although there are inherent consequences.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If the process is entirely God, and God always succeeds in his actions, the only logical conclusion is that people are not saved because God did not act.
That is not the only logical conclusion. There are four-point Calvinists (hypothetical universalists) who would say that it may be that all are elected. There are Barthian Calvinists who, as a middle ground to five-point Arminianism and five-point Calvinism, would say that God has acted, entirely and with full success, in Christ -- that it is Christ who is eternally elect, and that all joined in him share in that eternal election.
Which ends up looking closer to Arminianism in a lot of ways.
--------------------
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 chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is fundamentally what bothers me. The Arminian position (and indeed some others) see grace as being offered to all.
Which still doesnt explain why some accept that offer and some don't. Were they a little more spiritual? A little smarter? A little better?
quote:
If the process is entirely God, and God always succeeds in his actions, the only logical conclusion is that people are not saved because God did not act.
Well, if you take the Arminian route, you still have a God who creates the universe knowing full well that in doing so beings would be created who would ultimately reject him and end up in hell.
Either way you have some action of God in the depths of time that confine some subset of humanity to hell.
I don't think anyone has an answer to this. It's one of the paradoxes of faith. Basically the problem of Theodicy as it applies to salvation.
As W Hyatt says, that's the consequence of creating creatures with free will. Why did God let the Fall happen in the first place? Why did God create creatures that NEED saving?
There seems to be a fundamental difference to me between presenting the offer of salvation to all, recognising that not all will listen because of the very nature of the creatures you've created, and personally selecting which creatures to save and which creatures not to save.
The Arminian failure of all to be saved is a practical observation of the consequences of God allowing us to be fallible human beings. The Calvinist failure of all to be saved is God playing favourites.
Maybe I'm just being too egalitarian about this, but I see plenty of passages that suggest God wants everyone. In which case the explanation of why he doesn't GET everyone doesn't lie with God but with us.
[ 31. July 2012, 23:01: 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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There seems to be a fundamental difference to me between presenting the offer of salvation to all, recognising that not all will listen because of the very nature of the creatures you've created,
You've just moved the problem around. The question that now arises is - surely God being all powerful could create the best of all possible worlds in which all his creatures choose him freely.
quote:
In which case the explanation of why he doesn't GET everyone doesn't lie with God but with us.
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There seems to be a fundamental difference to me between presenting the offer of salvation to all, recognising that not all will listen because of the very nature of the creatures you've created,
You've just moved the problem around. The question that now arises is - surely God being all powerful could create the best of all possible worlds in which all his creatures choose him freely.
This honestly sounds like "can God create a rock he can't move". How on earth can it be a free choice if God has guaranteed the result? You've just robbed the word 'free' of its meaning.
Yes, of course he COULD create such a world. It's not clear that he DID.
It's also far from clear what would make that the 'best' world, either. But that's a separate debate. I'm interested in how this world is.
I suppose it's possible that the whole thing has been set up in this universalist fashion. However, I would then add to my list of questions to ask God once I get to heaven, why go through that incredibly tortuous process? Why spend the time with the warnings of hell and so forth if you knew we were all ending up here?
I now have in mind the notion that life is basically a Halloween train. God puts scary things around but at the end we'll pull through and have a laugh about it.
[ 01. August 2012, 00:09: 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:
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
There's the rub.
--------------------
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:
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
There's the rub.
I listened.
This is where the hard line Calvinist goes "AHA! A WORK!" but I just don't see it. I don't see how tying the rope around your waist makes it all about how wonderful you are. I don't see how there's any greater MERIT in having been one who listened over one who didn't. It still means I'm a person who needed saving.
Listening to God's call is only a 'work' if you take the extreme, Pharisaical view of work I referred to earlier in the context of their rules about what you could and couldn't do on the Sabbath. It's missing the point. Saying that you can't get to heaven by works is saying that you can't earn your way to heaven. There's no 'earning' involved in accepting God's free, unmerited invitation.
--------------------
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
With apologies to Mark 2:23-27 and Luke 6:1-5...
We are all walking through a field of corn that God has planted. There are even signs dotted around saying "FREE CORN". We need food.
My position is that hungry people should pick the ears of corn and eat.
It feels to me like the hard-line Calvinist response is that picking corn is work. The correct thing to do is to keep walking and wait to see whether God makes any of the corn grains leap into our mouths. Which he will open.
--------------------
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:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
quote:
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
--------------------
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
Verse citations please. Preferably in modern English.
The second one in particular, as it absolutely SCREAMS "what's the context" at me.
The first one, not so much, because I absolutely agree, there is no-one righteous. I didn't grow any corn.
[ 01. August 2012, 03:19: 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:
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:16-24
--------------------
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
Seriously, I am not even going to read that version. What is so magical about centuries old English? The Bible wasn't written in it.
But at some point I may look up the passage in my NIV and get back to you.
--------------------
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:
Seriously, I am not even going to read that version.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There seems to be a fundamental difference to me between presenting the offer of salvation to all, recognising that not all will listen because of the very nature of the creatures you've created,
You've just moved the problem around. The question that now arises is - surely God being all powerful could create the best of all possible worlds in which all his creatures choose him freely.
This is nonsense. If God creates the world in such a way that we all choose him, then we're not choosing him freely. "He forced me to freely choose to love him." Huh?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Seriously, I am not even going to read that version.
Yes, it's all my fault if you go out of your way to make the conversation difficult. Looking for another Hell call?
--------------------
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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
quote:
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Of course God chooses us, ordains us, and seeks after us (all of us), not the other way around. But how does that imply anything one way or the other about the role that our freely offered consent plays?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It feels to me like the hard-line Calvinist response is that picking corn is work. The correct thing to do is to keep walking and wait to see whether God makes any of the corn grains leap into our mouths. Which he will open.
Heh, yeah. God created us for action, for work - the original instructions in Genesis are for Adam and Eve to tend the Garden of Eden and have mastery of all the earth. So I think a response is always needed; it doesn't make sense to sit around passively, waiting for God to do the work.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously, I am not even going to read that version. What is so magical about centuries old English? The Bible wasn't written in it.
But at some point I may look up the passage in my NIV and get back to you.
+1 for modern English, please. At least use the New King James Version? Speaking for myself, I have no background in 16th century English and have always read modern Bible translation, so quoting the KJV just puts up a barrier against my understanding the point being made.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
There's the rub.
I listened.
Why did you listen while thousands didn't?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This honestly sounds like "can God create a rock he can't move". How on earth can it be a free choice if God has guaranteed the result? You've just robbed the word 'free' of its meaning.
I think the question is 'free' of what? There's a parallel here to atheist materialist thinking. A materialist would argue that saying we have free will means that we aren't hypnotised or coerced. It doesn't mean that our decisions are free from the laws of physics. The laws of physics aren't in competetion with our free wills: without the laws of physics we wouldn't have wills at all. This line of reasoning is called compatibilism.
In the same way, a compatibilist who believes in God believes that free will doesn't mean free of God. God isn't in competition with us: without God creating us we wouldn't have wills. Our wills are unfree not because God does what we do but because they're constrained by something other than themselves - sin or outside agency.
Of course, there are problems with the above line of argument, of which the most important is that it makes God directly responsible for sin. So if you follow the above line of argument I think you'd better be a universalist. But it's a perfectly orthodox line of argument.
[ 01. August 2012, 08:44: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is nonsense. If God creates the world in such a way that we all choose him, then we're not choosing him freely. "He forced me to freely choose to love him." Huh?
No, I wasn't entirely suggesting that, I was suggesting that for every possible creation God knew who would choose him and who wouldnt, so the question became one of trade offs (essentially the same argument that Ivan makes in the Brothers Karamavoz). You are also assuming the libertarian brand of free-will in your response.
Frankly, if the alternative is eternal torment, violate my free will (which btw isn't what calvinism claims).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
There's the rub.
I listened.
Why did you listen while thousands didn't?
No idea. I'm not in anyone else's head so it's impossible for me to know what it was like for me compared to what it was like for them.
--------------------
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:
Yes, it's all my fault if you go out of your way to make the conversation difficult. Looking for another Hell call?
Oh, go on and look it up if "thy" is so difficult for you. If anything, the NIV is more damning to your line.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
There's the rub.
I listened.
Why did you listen while thousands didn't?
No idea. I'm not in anyone else's head so it's impossible for me to know what it was like for me compared to what it was like for them.
Well, presumably you must have some thoughts on the matter. Did God shout a little louder? Or did you just listen a little harder?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
There's the rub.
I listened.
This is where the hard line Calvinist goes "AHA! A WORK!" but I just don't see it. I don't see how tying the rope around your waist makes it all about how wonderful you are. I don't see how there's any greater MERIT in having been one who listened over one who didn't. It still means I'm a person who needed saving.
Listening to God's call is only a 'work' if you take the extreme, Pharisaical view of work I referred to earlier in the context of their rules about what you could and couldn't do on the Sabbath. It's missing the point. Saying that you can't get to heaven by works is saying that you can't earn your way to heaven. There's no 'earning' involved in accepting God's free, unmerited invitation.
Ok, here is where I have to say I agree...if "works" is purely a matter of "earning" and "saying how great I am" . But that's the classic Protestant take on "works" isn't it? I mean, when I talk about living a good life, striving to be Christlike, and repenting when I fail as being my own part of salvation, most Calvinists I know would call it " works" trying to earn salvation. But I see no difference between that and your example. To me they are the same..the only difference is that in your model you do it once, and in mine it's something you do constantly your entire life.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Isn't that a description of what we are saved from, rather than a once-and-for-all definition of what we are?
By which I mean that as Christians we ought be getting more righteous, understanding more, seeking after God more. That is (in part) what salvation consists of. Salvation isn't just a pardon for sin, it is a call to holiness.
Is there any serious theological problem if I notice the (quite obvious) fact that other people are more righteous than I am, have more understanding, and are more committed to seeking God? They are saved by grace, as I am, and certainly did not earn or deserve their salvation, but they have, as far as I can tell, so far made a better job of Christianity than I have. They've made better choices. I don't doubt that they've had God's help, but what they have had God's help for is actually to become better people.
Now if that is true of Christian discipleship for established Christians, why can't it be true at the start of the Christian life? Or, indeed, the non-Christian or pre-Christian life? God gives us grace so that we can make real choices, because what he wants is a holy people, people who will want to choose him. God does not want the "no one is righteous" thing to be true - that's the thing about this world that God is most concerned to change. So he gives us enough strength that we can start looking up, and listening, and realising that we need forgiveness, and then beginning to want to be better, until we can begin to display something of the holiness of God.
The conceptual problem that Calvinism has is that as soon as the prospect of real moral improvement or merit is raised, the false dichotomy of whether God or humanity gets the credit is introduced, so that any goodness attributable to humanity is seen as being to God's detriment. Which is absurd - our moral improvement is one of God's purposes. We are supposed to be getting better. God wants us to be getting better. It is to God's credit when we freely choose the good. His relationship with us is one that he compares to that of father and son - and that is how we should consider the question of merit.
A good son is never out of debt to a good father - no matter how well he does, he will acknowledge that his father gave him life, and by his provision, teaching and example made that life blessed. But a good father is never more proud than when his son is freely and spontaneously good - when a son starts noticing, and then starts looking out for, opportunities to be kind, and doesn't need to be pushed and cajoled into behaving well, his father feels that his work is coming to fruitition, and then nothing can make him happier than hearing his son praised. A son's goodness is his father's glory. Would you rather be told that you had good parenting skills, or good children?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
That's not a problem for Calvinism. Calvin believed that conversion really was marked by a holy life. Luther was the one that doubted sanctification, and since I can't see that people in the Church are much better than people outside the Church I'm inclined to agree with him.
--------------------
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:
Yes, it's all my fault if you go out of your way to make the conversation difficult. Looking for another Hell call?
Oh, go on and look it up if "thy" is so difficult for you. If anything, the NIV is more damning to your line.
We are trying to have a difficult and complex theological conversation. Well I am, at least. You don't make it any easier by merely cutting and pasting slabs of Biblical text that have to be further translated for clarity, and then read back into their context. I might add that you still don't appear to have provided references for the first two texts as requested. There is quite enough engagement with the actual topic to be had without making communication with you more difficult.
Frankly, given past history, it's quite unclear to me whether you actually want to engage, or whether this your method of 'not talking to me' while still saying something. And honestly, I don't have any interest in playing games with you at this point. Either engage in actual conversation, using your own words and citing the Bible as you feel appropriate, or I am just going to ignore your 'contributions' and continue the discussion with other parties.
--------------------
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
Here you go, Orfeo. Engage.
quote:
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[a] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[b] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
--------------------
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 citation. Making it difficult to see context.
My time this week and next is limited, and I have to choose between competing priorities. Chasing around to find passages has just got crossed off the priority list. goodnight.
--------------------
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 was exactly the same passage I cited earlier. The one you refused to read because I didn't use your preferred translation.
Your little sermon about how I'm the one unwilling to engage is ringing rather hollow. I posted your authorized version.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I ask, if any Calvinists are still willing to pop up in here, what Calvinism makes of the parable of the Prodigal Son?
Context! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Three lost things are found in Luke 15
The Lost Sheep wanders away because it knows no better, and the good shepherd goes and gets it back - whether it wants to come back or not. The sheep in no sense chooses to repent - the shepherd actively seeks it out, and carries it back on his shoulders. But "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance."
The Lost Coin has no choice in being lost, and no choice in being found. The woman loses it, and the women finds it again. Yet "Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
The Lost Son chooses to leave, and the father not only lets him go, but actively supports him by giving him money. Then he chooses to come back of his own accord - without the money. However "...we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found."
And if you can put together a consistent theory of predestination vs free will out of that lot, either on the side of Paul/Augustine/Aquinas/Calvin or else that of Pelagius/Arminius/Wesley then you are a hero of eisegesis - they are stories, not philosophy essays! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 01. August 2012, 15:19: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Jesus leaves off the parable of the prodigal son before the ending- we never quite get to the party. So how, then, does it end? We know full well how it ends. The sons crucify the father, but he rises from the dead and offers his mercy all the more.
--------------------
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 chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
So why did you accept God while thousands didn't?
There's the rub.
I listened.
Why did you listen while thousands didn't?
No idea. I'm not in anyone else's head so it's impossible for me to know what it was like for me compared to what it was like for them.
Well, presumably you must have some thoughts on the matter. Did God shout a little louder? Or did you just listen a little harder?
See, I don't think I can know this.
Did I have a sense of God calling me? Sure. I think that would be accurate, looking back over 20 years ago as best I can remember. And I don't have a problem with that proposition.
The proposition that worries me is not that God called me, but that there are people who never get the call. And there's no way of me testing or verifying that. I'm not in other people's heads or lives.
That proposition, though, says things about the character of God that are incredibly disturbing.
--------------------
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:
It was exactly the same passage I cited earlier. The one you refused to read because I didn't use your preferred translation.
Your little sermon about how I'm the one unwilling to engage is ringing rather hollow. I posted your authorized version.
Right. When I'm sitting on my iPhone that's not immediately obvious.
I still did point out to you that I was interested in your own words, not merely citations of Bible passages. So I still don't think of that as engaging. If I want to talk to the Bible, I can do that offline quite nicely.
I may well get to sitting down and reading the passage, in its wider context. Maybe the other two as well if you EVER provide a citation for them. But that doesn't mean I'll come back here and talk to you about them. As you've not said what you think they mean, why should I tell you what I think they mean.
Meanwhile, in response:
quote:
I stand at the door and knock
I'm sure you can work out where that's from.
[ 01. August 2012, 23:22: 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
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And if you can put together a consistent theory of predestination vs free will out of that lot, either on the side of Paul/Augustine/Aquinas/Calvin or else that of Pelagius/Arminius/Wesley then you are a hero of eisegesis - they are stories, not philosophy essays!
I have an urge to just call this "the Luke 15 paradox" as shorthand from now on!
--------------------
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:
Here you go, Orfeo. Engage.
You will note that the passage is addressed to sinners who imagine themselves righteous. (Verse 20 in particular makes no sense addressed to one of the saved.) For the sinful heart likes to imagine itself as treating other people as pottery figures to dispose of as it likes, and if it imagines itself righteous then the sinful heart likes to imagine God as being its proxy, a giant version of itself in whose power the sinful heart fantasises it shares by proxy.
To read the passage as supporting a non-universalist form of predestination is to read it with the mind of the Pharisee or the Elder Son and not as the publican or the prodigal.
To read it as a Christian is to read on through Chapter 10, verse 1 to Chapter 11 verse 32.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I'm sure you can work out where that's from. [Roll Eyes]
Revelation 3:20. Amazing what Google and/or basic biblical literacy will do for you.
quote:
But that doesn't mean I'll come back here and talk to you about them.
Then maybe you should keep your sermons about my lack of engagement to yourself? I mean, you threatened to call me to hell for posting the KJV, and now I'm supposed to put up with your little games here? Engage, or go home.
--------------------
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:
You will note that the passage is addressed to sinners who imagine themselves righteous.
I note no such thing. Paul is presenting a theological argument that God is not unjust to save some and damn others, according to his own standards, not human standards.
quote:
For the sinful heart likes to imagine itself as treating other people as pottery figures to dispose of as it likes, and if it imagines itself righteous then the sinful heart likes to imagine God as being its proxy, a giant version of itself in whose power the sinful heart fantasises it shares by proxy.
Quite frankly your reading of that passage is bizarre. The passage says quite clearly that the potter is God, and he creates pots as he likes, some to salvation and some to damnation.
quote:
To read the passage as supporting a non-universalist form of predestination is to read it with the mind of the Pharisee or the Elder Son and not as the publican or the prodigal.
What do you and Orfeo think the Pharisees were guilty of anyway? The connection here to the Pharisees is really a complete mystery. The Pharisees believed they were righteous because they could follow rules, when real righteousness comes from grace, through faith.
quote:
To read it as a Christian is to read on through Chapter 10, verse 1 to Chapter 11 verse 32
Continuing to read certainly makes my point about the Pharisees, but doesn't draw out your exegesis of the previous passages. "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;"
In fact, the case for predestination only strengthens in chapter 11, where Paul writes
"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day."
--------------------
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, my issue with your methods the last couple of days is quite simple, even though you still appear not to have grasped it. Posting Bible passages does not, in and of itself, constitute a conversation. I'm simply not interested in treating Purgatory as a bulletin board for posting Bible verses.
You have now actually started TALKING about the passage. Great. When I've had a chance to sit down and read the passage properly, I will try to join in the conversation you've now actually, finally started with Dafyd.
--------------------
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
Whatever, Orfeo. You don't have to keep posting about how much engagement I have in store as some indefinite future. I get it.
--------------------
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
--------------------
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:
quote:
You will note that the passage is addressed to sinners who imagine themselves righteous.
I note no such thing. Paul is presenting a theological argument that God is not unjust to save some and damn others, according to his own standards, not human standards.
Which some and which others? The some are those not elect, and the others are the elect. Paul is arguing that God is not unjust to damn those whom he has elected and assured of salvation.
Suppose God promises you his salvation and assures you of his promises, and then condemns you to eternal damnation. Who are you then to accuse God of breaking his promises?
Because the passage is about Israel and the Gentiles. You can hardly miss that. And the question Paul is addressing is why is God saving the Gentiles and not Israel God's elect to whom God has promised and assured salvation? Or alternatively why is God paying those who came late the same denarius as those who came early.
Paul is a great ironist. And here he takes on the argument on its own terms. God's promises give you no rights over God that you may determine how God meets them. In particular, they give you no rights over God that God must save you first and not other people.
quote:
quote:
For the sinful heart likes to imagine itself as treating other people as pottery figures to dispose of as it likes, and if it imagines itself righteous then the sinful heart likes to imagine God as being its proxy, a giant version of itself in whose power the sinful heart fantasises it shares by proxy.
Quite frankly your reading of that passage is bizarre. The passage says quite clearly that the potter is God, and he creates pots as he likes, some to salvation and some to damnation.
That's not my reading of the passage. It's my commentary upon sin's interpretation of the passage. If read in sin, the passage says quite clearly that God creates pots as he likes, because sin is incapable of understanding God in any terms other than itself. Sin is quite capable of understanding that God might do as God likes, creating some to salvation and some to damnation, because that is what sin would like to do. But God is not sin writ large.
Any interpretation of Scripture that describes God in a way that can be understood by sin is therefore faulty.
quote:
quote:
To read the passage as supporting a non-universalist form of predestination is to read it with the mind of the Pharisee or the Elder Son and not as the publican or the prodigal.
What do you and Orfeo think the Pharisees were guilty of anyway? The connection here to the Pharisees is really a complete mystery. The Pharisees believed they were righteous because they could follow rules, when real righteousness comes from grace, through faith.
The connection here to the Pharisees is really not a mystery, since the whole passage is about Israel's election. Anyway it is not true that the Pharisees believed they were righteous because they could follow rules. That picture of the Pharisees is the result of Protestant polemic using the Pharisees as stand-ins for late medieval Roman Catholic theology. The Pharisees themselves believed nothing of the sort.
What did they believe:
Luke 18: 11: The Pharisee prayed thus: 'God I thank you that I am not like other people...'.
The Pharisee is thanking God for his righteousness. He believes that his righteousness is due entirely to God. He doesn't think that he's earned God's grace by his righteousness. He believes that his righteousness has been given to him by God's grace. The Synod of Dort could not fault him.
No. The Pharisee's fault is that he believes he is not like other people - he believes he is elect and other people are not.
(Out of time: commentary on chapters 10 and 11 to follow. But any reading whose conclusion is not 'so God may be merciful to all' is thus far demonstrably incorrect.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Dafyd, your exegesis is so strained that you've made me lose all will to argue with you. I think my exegesis of the passage is clear enough.
--------------------
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, Zach. Oh my goodness. Wow.
That Romans 9 is about Jews and Gentiles is incredibly clear.
I mean, look at the reference to some things being for special use and some for common purposes. If you think THAT is referring saved versus unsaved, you have rocks in your head.
Look at verse 10 to 13, for heavens' sake. No wonder I tell you I want to look at the context. You chopped them off in a way that totally chops off what the passage is referring to.
[ 02. August 2012, 13:09: 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
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If the process is entirely God, and God always succeeds in his actions, the only logical conclusion is that people are not saved because God did not act.
Or as Paul puts it in Romans 9:18, God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."
Paul then goes on to anticipate the reaction "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”", which is how people usually react to Calvinism.
This fact doesn't answer the objection, of course, but it suggests that when people make this objection to Calvinism, they are objecting to something taught in the Bible and not something dreamt up by an overly legalistic Frenchman.
Edited to add: of course there's a context concerning Israel that needs to be taken into account. But it's part of a wider argument that Jews and Gentiles are saved on the same basis (Rom 10:12), so the point carries over to us.
[ 02. August 2012, 13:23: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
