|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Can you be a Christian and a Calvinist?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak.
You are exaggerating, surely? I can think of many counterexamples to this. The first one that comes to mind is, "here is a true Israelite in whom there is no guile." Or, "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah." Then there's the beatitudes.
No, I cannot square what you say with the Gospel.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak.
You are exaggerating, surely? I can think of many counterexamples to this. The first one that comes to mind is, "here is a true Israelite in whom there is no guile." Or, "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah." Then there's the beatitudes.
No, I cannot square what you say with the Gospel.
All 3 examples refer to individuals and people in who God's grace has worked to bring about spiritual change.
This is us in our natural humanity:
quote:
Mark 7:20 And Jesus said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mark 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Even when we do good, our Lord assumes that we are evil: quote:
Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
[ 28. April 2005, 05:17: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All 3 examples refer to individuals and people in who God's grace has worked to bring about spiritual change.
Well you've rigged this debate clearly so I can't even score points. Suit yourself.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy -- no matter what example I bring up, you will say, "Oh them, they're already redeemed," so they don't count.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
"Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah."
Lets at least get the whole verse...
quote:
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
quote:
Then there's the beatitudes.
The ones which are essentially blessing human inadequacy and weakness because of God's grace and strength? Still doesn't suggest there is anything inherent in us to be blessed...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Nope. None of the examples you give have Jesus asserting the goodness of the people being addressed.
Especially the Beatitudes! My goodness, if you'll pardon the expression, how do you explain this...
Matt. 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matt. 5:4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
They mourn over the poverty of their spiritual state! Not because their aunties have died. They are blessed precisely because they recognise that they aren't good — unlike the Pharisees.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They mourn over the poverty of their spiritual state! Not because their aunties have died.
It doesn't say that. You're reading your theology (or rather anthropology) into the text.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There is nothing to indicate the individual points of the beatitudes are meant to all refer to the same thing. They appear to be blessings on separate groups of people -- or at least, on separate virtues.
The poor (in spirit)
Those who mourn
The peacemakers
Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness
I would think that your position, which uses them to gloss each other, is the one that needs defending. Mine seems to be the simpler reading of the text.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Proof not assertion please. Or at least, an interpretation that fits better. Otherwise we'll have a Purg thread filled with witty oneliners and we might as well just take it back to Hell and get gort involved..
This is getting too personal and I can't see how why you would make a gratuitous reference to Gort, who has not posted on this thread.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
This discussion is all very well, but can those on the we-have-no-free-will side not see that every single one of their examples is at least open to the other interpretation? I can see your point on most of the texts we discuss, but...
...once that's acknowledged, if you're prepared so to do, can you answer what looks to me to be the Scriptural clincher, that God wants one thing (salvation for all, for example) yet another thing happens? For this to be the case, then either God is not completely in control as something happens against his will, or the distinction between necessary and contingent will is valid and the discrepancy is explained by us being able to choose.
I cannot see that you've managed to explain your way out of this yet. Calvinism, it seems to me, denies God's sovereignty unless you ignore those inconvenient bits of, and in my opinion major themes running through, Scripture.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak. We're so bad, even the good bits are bad!
Would the word imperfect help here? Here are four examples of Jesus and the imperfect.
Mark 1 v 29-31. A sick, worried, widow is helped and healed - then responds by serving them. Even the good bits are bad?
Luke 7 v 36-50. A sinful women behaves better towards Jesus than the Pharisees before he pronounces forgiveness over her. Even the good bits are bad?
Matthew 9 v 20-22. A long-suffering woman comes close enough to touch Jesus' cloak. He interrupts a journey to a dying child to speak to her and encourage her that her faith has healed her. Even the good bits are bad?
Luke 10 v 25-37. The behaviour of a Samaritan (who would be judged a heretic) towards an injured traveller is exhorted as an example of loving neighbour as oneself. Even the good bits are bad?
In this last example even the bad bits are held up as capable of great goodness!
I cannot understand how anyone can read the gospels and characterise Jesus' view of human beings in such gloomy terms. His most vocal criticisms of people are reserved for exploitative religious leaders, the self-serving and the proud. And the poor heard him gladly. Now why do you think that was the case?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder what "free" actually means.
I would say you were being disingenuous but that's not my call. In this discussion, "free" means "free to choose for itself without outside interference (i.e. from God) whether to accept or reject God's offer of salvation."
I really think Luther's concept of humans having wills, but those wills are in bondage to sin, as having some sway here.
We can make all sort of choices, but having wills in bondage means our wills alone are not sufficient. It is God's choice for us that saves us. The thing is that God will let us make a decision against God at any time.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
A reponse to Mousethief:
[I note the other comments that have been made but I will need to come back to them!]
Here are some thoughts on why Matthew 5:1-12, the Beatitudes, are addressed to one group of people and not nine.
First, it would seem unusual for there to be no overlap between these groups, such that every blessed person could be fitted into one of nine categories, enjoying a specific blessing designed for them but missing out on the others.
Second, it makes it difficult to reconcile the parallel passage in Luke 6:20-23, where the number of groups of blessed has dropped from nine to four, with related but distinctive characteristics of their own. In Luke, Jesus makes no mention at all of the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers. However, four new categories have been added, and they are people who will receive woe. On the ‘separate groups’ reading, how many different groups are being addressed once Luke is taken into account? 9? (the blessed of Matthew, seen from a different perspective) 13? (the blessed of Matthew plus the blessed of Luke) 17? (the blessed of Matthew plus the blessed of Luke plus the 4 groups who are under woe — not blessed, but still part of the total group count). Or some number inbetween, allowing that at least some of the ‘blessed’ groups share significant characteristics in common, eg the ‘mourners” of Matthew and the “weepers” of Luke.
A far less clumsy and more elegant explanation would be to suggest that the people who are “blessed” are the one group of faithful disciples, described from different angles. This matches with parables such as those of the sheep and goats in Mt 25, where there really is only one group that is blessed (and a corresponding group that is cursed).
When we look at the actual content of the Beatitudes, we discover
Third, that the blessing of v3 and the blessing of v 10, receiving the Kingdom of Heaven, is identical. Structurally, this ‘inclusio’ suggests that the blessings of verses 3-10 constitute a unity — that it is one blessing and not eight. The final blessing of vv 11-12 breaks the pattern and appears to sum up the previous list of blessings and suggest the attitude that should be taken to them (“rejoice and be glad”)
Fourth, when we look at the individuals described and the blessings received, other links are discernible. I’ll skip some of the gory detail, but it is not hard to see how the attitudes described would be linked, and how the blessing of the kingdom of heaven would be appropriate to all of them. “Poverty in spirit” (v 3) suggests a recognition that before God, we are indeed lacking and not rich in God’s grace and blessing. This would lead naturally to the “mourning” of v 4, and the “meekness” of v 5, not to mention the “hungering and thirsting for righteousness” of v 5. “Righteousness” is a prominent idea in Matthew and here, in the Beatitudes, confirms that there is a moral dimension to the “poverty of Spirit” earlier mentioned. vv 7-10 move to describe the interpersonal relationships of the blessed ones of the earlier verses: they are merciful, they are peacemakers, yet they find themselves reviled. Vv 11-12, as I mentioned, is an appropriate conclusion.
Thus there is an internal coherence to the content of both the people being blessed, and (if we were to look in more detail) the blessings themselves.
Fifth and finally, the Sermon on the Mount concludes in Mt 7:24-27 with a similar invitation to blessing (and a warning against the alternative). This gives structural coherence to the sermon as a whole. We note particularly that there is only one sort of person who receives the blessing in Mt 7:24-27, not nine groups, which again suggests (returning to the thought of 5:1-12) that different perspectives of the same blessing to the same group of people are being given.
A key undergirding idea here is our moral failure and our shortcomings, confirming the idea that Jesus’ view of the sinfulness of human nature is bleak. If even the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is not enough, what hope have the rest of us?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A key undergirding idea here is our moral failure and our shortcomings, confirming the idea that Jesus’ view of the sinfulness of human nature is bleak. If even the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is not enough, what hope have the rest of us?
The same hope a Jewish tax collector had in Palestine when Jesus was living, I would guess. Remember that a Jewish tax collector was roughly akin to a traitor.
The same hope as a person following another religion, as the Centurion that asked Jesus to cure his child.
The same hope as the woman at the well, a person having sexual relations outside of marriage and follower of a corrupt form of the religion from the Jewish standpoint, much like some members of the ECUSA to certain African primates.
Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the Master's table.
I believe Jesus said the issue is whether or not you call yourself justified before the law. Something about saying you see, therefore your guilt remains.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
TBAS,
I am deeply sympathetic to both of your posts above, indeed my response on reading them is "yes, only more so".
The awareness of the bondage of our wills, and the related sense of how far short of righteousness we fall, are what drive us in the direction of grace and grace alone.
God's grace unaccompanied by human effort reflects badly on us but brings very great glory to him.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do we have any evidence that it is in our power to choose good as a general rule of our life, let alone choosing God?
The picture Jesus paints of us in our natural humanity seems to be unrelievedly bleak. We're so bad, even the good bits are bad!
so that the problem of free will is not just a problem to do with God's sovereignty (although it is that), but a problem of our ability.
I think that if someone was arguing Pelagianism here, Gordon, this would be a good response, but who is?
You seem to be mixing free will to respond to God's grace, with ability to do God's will naturally.
I think the question could be: 'Can an unsaved person ask God for help when under conviction of the Holy Spirit?'
The Calvinist answer is that they cannot until they are born again, without their will being involved.
My response is that they can. This is why Jesus and every prophet preached for a response from their audiences. They knew that they could respond, and they preached consequences for those who would not.
When the tax collector went into the Temple and prayed 'God have mercy on me, a sinner!' that was not a work, it was a prayer and a cry for help.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nuparadigm
Apprentice
# 9417
|
Posted
Can one be a Christian and a Calvinist? I imagine so ...anything's possible with God!
--------------------
The last train out of any station will not be filled with nice people.
Posts: 15 | From: Fort Bend County, Texas | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
A Christian must be a Calvinist, not necessarily wearing that name or even knowing who John Calvin is, but believing in their heart that they are evil (Total Depravity), that only God is good (Unconditional Election), that only God can save them (Limited Atonement) and can do all that he chooses (Irresistable Grace) and that they are forever in the arms of Jesus Christ by grace (Perseverance of the Saints).
Does a Christian have a perfect understanding of all these doctrines? Of course not... but neither will they hate such truth in their hearts.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
A Christian must be a Calvinist, not necessarily wearing that name or even knowing who John Calvin is, but believing in their heart that they are evil (Total Depravity), that only God is good (Unconditional Election), that only God can save them (Limited Atonement) and can do all that he chooses (Irresistable Grace) and that they are forever in the arms of Jesus Christ by grace (Perseverance of the Saints).
I don't doubt that Calvin believed this, nor that Calvinists would agree with it, but it is an unhelpful definition precisely because so would many other Christians. I can see much scope for quibbling over your choice of words, and for genuine disagreement about the assurance of salvation, but broadly, you are right that many (most? all?) Christians agree with you in substance.
Calvinist is a useful label only if it distinguishes different sorts of belief. A definition whereby John Wesley or George MacDonald are Calvinists isn't helpful. Since Calvin said much that all Christians would agree with 'Calvinist' is more sensibly used to mean NOT 'someone who agrees with the substance of what Calvin believed' BUT 'a Christian who follows Calvin where he differs from other Christians'.
The key area of difference is that Calvinists believe that those who never accept Christ were never called by God, never had the chance to believe, never had the opportunity of salvation, were not given the ability to avoid sin, and are irrevocably damned.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The best we can seek to do is work with the evidence as we have it. That is all each of us are trying to do, hence I don't think that the "vile and evil heresy which makes you not a Christian" language is all that helpful.
My view is that Calvinists (generally, and those of them that I know and love) necessarily believe conduct to be true of God which if it were done by any other entity, they would (one hopes) reject as unjust and wicked. It seems to me they would rather believe the Bible to be true than God to be good - or at least, that they would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
I do think this is "vile and evil heresy" but not that it "makes you not a Christian". I don't think anyone has asserted Calvinists are not Christian (Mousethief's 'No' at the start being hyperbolic).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Is it heretical to deny the principle of divine simplicity? If so, I would submit that Calvinism is heretical.
In the Calvinist view, we all come before God in an identical condition: total depravity. God must (logically) respond to our condition in whatever way is right: that is, in whatever way is in accordance with His nature.
If it is right for Him to save someone in that condition, then He must save us all (Universalism). If it is right for Him to make someone an offer of grace, then He must do so to everyone (Arminianism).
But Calvinists seem to be arguing that it is right for God in that situation both to make an offer of grace and to condemn that person. But this means that God's nature in this situation is both to have mercy and to condemn us. Since these are opposite responses, it follows that the nature of the Godhead must be in conflict with Itself, thus violating the principle that God is simple.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Eliab:
quote:
A definition whereby John Wesley or George MacDonald are Calvinists isn't helpful.
John Wesley did not misunderstand Calvinism but called Calvinism "a most deadly enemy." His hatred of the Truth in attributing the doctrines of grace to the devil, showed that he lived the life of one who was unregenerate.
quote:
Since Calvin said much that all Christians would agree with 'Calvinist' is more sensibly used to mean NOT 'someone who agrees with the substance of what Calvin believed' BUT 'a Christian who follows Calvin where he differs from other Christians'.
I would suggest that Calvinism in a narrow sense is most definitely defined by the Synod of Dordrecht... from where the five points come from (in respose to the Arminians). In a wider sense all Christians who mourn over their depravity and sin and fall before the sovereignty of God are Calvinists in spirit... despite not understanding all the finer points. This is not to suggest that one can be an Arminian and a Calvinist. Arminianism is not a misunderstanding or ignorance of the Truth of sovereign grace... but a deep hatred for it... in preference for the sovereignty of man and free will.
quote:
It seems to me they would rather believe the Bible to be true than God to be good - or at least, that they would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
The Bible and not our own depraved natures dictate what is good and pleasing. Let God be true and every man a liar. The Bible can not be at odds with God as it is a reflection of the mind of God.
Ricardus:
quote:
But Calvinists seem to be arguing that it is right for God in that situation both to make an offer of grace and to condemn that person. But this means that God's nature in this situation is both to have mercy and to condemn us. Since these are opposite responses, it follows that the nature of the Godhead must be in conflict with Itself, thus violating the principle that God is simple.
Most who claim the term 'Calvinist' would be shocked to find that Calvin did not believe that God desires to save the reprobate. Calvin uses the term 'offer' as did many of the Refomers in terms of its latin root 'to present'... and not as a 'used car salesman' would use the term. Here is Calvin writing against Pighius:
"Pighius, like a wild beast escaped from his cage, rushes forth, bounding all fences in his way, uttering such sentiments as these:
‘The mercy of God is extended to everyone, for God wishes all men to be saved; and for that end He stands and knocks at the door of our heart, desiring to enter. Therefore, those were elected from before the foundation of the world, by whom He foreknew He should be received. But God hardens no one, excepting by His forebearance, in the same manner as too fond parents ruin their children by excessive indulgence.’
Just as if anyone, by such puerile dreams as these, could escape the force of all those things which the apostle plainly declares in direct contradiction to such sentiments!"
God most clearly saves whom He desires and is under no obligation to save any. You suggest that 'God must respond to our condition in whatever way is right.' Yes and this is why God was not merely able to forgive our iniquites with a wave of the magic wand. God sent His son to fully pay the price on the cross for our transgressions.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
P.S. Our minister here gave a speech on Calvin vs. Pighius if you are interested:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/audio/m3u/pighius.m3u
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
The Bible and not our own depraved natures dictate what is good and pleasing. Let God be true and every man a liar. The Bible can not be at odds with God as it is a reflection of the mind of God.
I was half-expected to be shot down in flames for suggesting this - thank you for confirming the point.
That is why I'm not a Calvinist - my first principle is that God is good. I won't believe of him what seems to me to be evil.
Not only does this seem to me a moral imperative, it is also sound practical sense - all the real intellectual progress I've made in my faith has been because I've struggled with teaching that conflicted with my morality. Sometimes I've changed my view of conscience, sometimes my view of Scripture, and on some issues I'm still thinking. Had I simply assumed that (a particular, possibly flawed interpretation of) the Bible must be right, and felt that to question it would be "Hatred of the Truth", I'd be the poorer for it.
quote:
In a wider sense all Christians who mourn over their depravity and sin and fall before the sovereignty of God are Calvinists in spirit...
Oh, it seems I am a Calvinist after all, if that's the definition. Although I feel bound to point out to you that by this test, the unregenerate Mr Wesley slips in as well. You'd better review the definition quickly, before he ends up being saved against God's sovreign will. [/sarcasm]
I note you use 'hatred of truth' twice to refer to people with whom you disagree. Would you care to explain at what point misunderstanding or error becomes hatred of truth - and let us know by what spiritual authority you are empowered to know the thoughts of men's hearts and make the distinction?
[ 01. May 2005, 21:06: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by me:
But Calvinists seem to be arguing that it is right for God in that situation both to make an offer of grace and to condemn that person. But this means that God's nature in this situation is both to have mercy and to condemn us.
Worded that one a bit loosely. "Make an offer of grace" means "grant grace" or "grant the means to receive grace" (thank you, londonderrry). "Condemn that person" means condemn them without granting them grace - i.e. a diametrically opposed response.
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
You suggest that 'God must respond to our condition in whatever way is right.' Yes and this is why God was not merely able to forgive our iniquites with a wave of the magic wand. God sent His son to fully pay the price on the cross for our transgressions.
I'm not (here) arguing against Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I'm objecting to the way that, according to Calvinists, the "whatever way is right", in identical circumstances, seems to vary between two opposite responses, thus making God inconsistent.
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Eliab:
quote:
Not only does this seem to me a moral imperative, it is also sound practical sense - all the real intellectual progress I've made in my faith has been because I've struggled with teaching that conflicted with my morality.
When we attempt to judge the Word of God which as I said earlier is a reflection of the mind of God... we are in effect attempting to just God based on our own sin tainted conscience and system of ethics. God's Word must be the lamp to our feet (not with our own system of ethics illuminating God's light.)
quote:
Oh, it seems I am a Calvinist after all, if that's the definition. [/sarcasm]
If you believe that you are totally depraved by nature than you agree that by nature you are purely evil and void of anything that could justly be called good? Is that what you are saying?
quote:
Although I feel bound to point out to you that by this test, the unregenerate Mr Wesley slips in as well. You'd better review the definition quickly, before he ends up being saved against God's sovreign will.
John Wesley did not believe that one must be born again by the grace of God in order to be saved... and therefore did not believe in total depravity... but salvation by works (despite what deceptive semi-pelagian language he used).
Wesley writes:
"the merciful God" sees Moslems and "regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas."
The Works of John Wesley (Baker, 1996), vol. 7, pp. 353-354
quote:
Would you care to explain at what point misunderstanding or error becomes hatred of truth
Warfield taught that the church experiences what he called "progressive orthodoxy" through history and when the Truth of God is clearly set out (eg. Nicea, Dordrecht, etc.) and rejected in its essence regarding the tenants of the Christian faith (Trinity, Sovereign Grace, etc.) than heresy is exposed. Any gospel that teaches a "salvation" plan that is conditioned upon the works and will of man is one of works and not the gospel of grace outlined by Scripture.
quote:
and let us know by what spiritual authority you are empowered to know the thoughts of men's hearts and make the distinction?
If you are referring to John Wesley than I would point out that John Wesley claimed that he wasn't saved (as late as 1767):
"In one of my last [letters] I was saying that I do not feel the wrath of God abiding on me; nor can I believe it does. And yet (this is the mystery), I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen … And yet, to be so employed of God! And so hedged in that I can neither get forward nor backward! Surely there was never such an instance before, from the beginning of the world! If I ever have had that faith, it would not be so strange. But I never had any other evidence of the eternal or invisible world than I have now; and that is none at all, unless such as faintly shines from reason’s glimmering ray. I have no direct witness (I do not say, that I am a child of God, but) of anything invisible or eternal."
(quoted in Stephen Tomkins, John Wesley, A Biography [Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2003], p. 168; italics mine)
If you are referring to Arminians in general... I would point out: 1. What the Scripture affirm in Galatians 1:8-9 and 2. That the Reformed Synods have already demonstrated from the Scriptures the error of Arminianism and that it is in effect the Pelagian heresy resurrected from hell. If a man claims to follow that gospel of works than they are in effect claiming to be a heretic. They condemn themselves.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
"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;"
Romans 9:31-32
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Ricardus:
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Romans 9:21
Reformed in Him,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Londonderry:
"who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
1 Tim 2:4 (ESV)
Please explain how Calvinism handles this concept.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I'm not saying that God is under any kind of externally-imposed moral obligation to be consistent. I'm saying it's illogical for Him to be inconsistent.
quote:
That the Reformed Synods have already demonstrated from the Scriptures the error of Arminianism and that it is in effect the Pelagian heresy resurrected from hell.
Smells to me like a circular argument.
Q: Why do you believe in Calvinism?
A: Because the Reformed Synods have shown that it's Biblical.
Q: But lots of people disagree with their exegesis.
A: Yes, that's because they hate the truth and are deceiving themselves.
Q: But how do you know it's because they're deceiving themselves?
A: Because the Reformed Synods have shown Calvinism is Biblical ....
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Greyface:
Exactly what Augustine pointed out:
Augustine (354-430) put it well: "Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, ‘For kings, and for all that are in authority,’ who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, ‘For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,’ that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, ‘Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth’ ... Our Lord ... says to the Pharisees: ‘Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb.’ For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As ... in this place we must understand by ‘every herb,’ every kind of herb, so in the former passage we may understand by ‘all men,’ every sort of men" (The Enchiridion, ciii).
Reformed in Him,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
P.S. Our minister wrote a short series of article son this passage if you are interested.
http://www.cprf.co.uk/crnews/crnnovember2004.htm#Gods
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Ricardus:
The Scriptures alone are authorative on the subject and the Scriptures teach that any gospel that conditions salvation on the works of man is accursed (Gal 1:8-9). The Reformed Creeds merely summarize what the Scriptures affirm.
God was not obliged to save any... and is not unjust to save some (despite the fact that all were in the same chains of sin.) If ten men owe me £100 each and I forgive one of the ten men their debts... Do any have a right to protest my injustice? No.
God deals with men differently according to His pleasure. Thank God that He does not deal with men in all the same manner or else we would all perish in our sins. What you view as 'inconsistancy' is called 'grace' in Scripture... God's undeserved mercy.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Londonderrry:
quote:
The Scriptures alone are authorative on the subject and the Scriptures teach that any gospel that conditions salvation on the works of man is accursed (Gal 1:8-9). The Reformed Creeds merely summarize what the Scriptures affirm.
On the question of Calvinism the Scriptures are at best ambiguous, otherwise this debate would not be possible. You are presumably arguing that accepting God's grace constitutes a work, and that Arminianism is therefore salvation by works. The question remains as to whether this is what Scripture means by a work. The Reformed Creeds say it is. Arminius and others disagree. Why should I trust the Reformed Creeds' interpretation of Scripture over Arminius'?
quote:
What you view as 'inconsistancy' is called 'grace' in Scripture... God's undeserved mercy.
Agreed, God's undeserved mercy is grace. Granting grace to some and not to others, when they are in identical circumstances, is inconsistency.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
A Christian must be a Calvinist, not necessarily wearing that name or even knowing who John Calvin is, but believing in their heart that they are evil (Total Depravity), that only God is good (Unconditional Election), that only God can save them (Limited Atonement) and can do all that he chooses (Irresistable Grace) and that they are forever in the arms of Jesus Christ by grace (Perseverance of the Saints).
If you removed all the bits in brackets in the above I could probably agree with you.
But, believing you are evil is not quite the same as total depravity, that only God is good is not unconditional election, that only God can save us is not limited atonement. God's omnipotence is not the same as irresistable grace and being in the arms of Jesus by grace (what do you mean by that?) is not perseverance of the saints.
I can beleive that I am a sinner who can only be saved by God's grace, and that only God is truly good and omnipotent ... and be a raving Arminian.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Londonderry
Do you realise that in your reply to Greyface you have argued that "all" does not mean "all", but "all types" and therefore, by extension "only some"? Isn't that at variance with the principle of the perspicuity (plain meaning) of scripture?
Your arguments are put with great force and sincerity, and you are clearly well versed. It seems to me to be the nemesis of your position that it de-Christianises all who see things differently to the particular reformed interpretation of scripture which you follow. It really is possible for good and sincere folks to see these things differently.
As a further example, please consider Romans 10 v 9-13. On the strength of it, I confess Jesus is Lord. I believe in my heart God raised him from the dead. And so I will be saved. ANYONE who trusts in him will never be put to shame. The same Lord is Lord of ALL and richly blesses ALL who call on him.
Not "some", not "all types". But ALL. Yes, ALL. Praise His Holy Name.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Londonderry:
"who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
1 Tim 2:4 (ESV)
Please explain how Calvinism handles this concept.
Hi GreyFace,
As this restates an earlier question to me I'll have a crack.
It's possible I haven't seen the problem here. You seem to think it is an issue that 1 Timothy 2;4 is true and yet (on the calvinistic, and i would argue biblical view) some are condemned.
My answer, and as I say it may be that I haven't seen the problem clearly, is that God can want two things and yet only one of them can come to pass. eg "Thou shalt not murder" — yet it was the plan of God that his Son be murdered. Two conflicting wills, one outcome.
There are plenty of analogies in our experience. If you pray "Your kingdom come" you are praying that God would return to separate the sheep from the goats in final judgment. Yet this would involve judgment on any friends and family who knew the truth about God and continued to refuse to bow the knee to Him or acknowledge him in any way as their Lord, or allow even that knowledge of Him is possible. Yet Christians pray that those who don't know God would come to know him and love him.
Such prayers contradict our desire that God would come to judge the world with justice.
By the way, this example doesn't require that you subscribe to the beliefs I've just outlined. All it requires is an acknowledgment that Christians can and have thought in this way and, in so doing, not involved themselves in irreconcilable contradiction. They, like God, want two different things and only one of those things can come to pass.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They, like God, want two different things and only one of those things can come to pass.
But unlike God, they are not omnipotent. This kinda throws a wrench in your lovely analogy and makes it completely inapplicable to God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They, like God, want two different things and only one of those things can come to pass.
But unlike God, they are not omnipotent. This kinda throws a wrench in your lovely analogy and makes it completely inapplicable to God.
No it doesn't. We can even want two things that are in our power to achieve and end up choosing one over the other. Jelly for dessert, ice-cream for dessert, jelly and ice-cream for dessert, or wanting to lose weight and skipping dessert altogether. I can want many things and cause one to come to pass.
It is an analogy, however, and the 'don't murder/but Jesus crucified' example is not. God wants two things, one happens.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Gordon, I'm going to have to take a powder from this thread for a bit -- I'm getting frustrated and I don't know how to keep up this conversation and not get upset. I apologize for not keeping up my end of the convo but feel it's better at this time if I take a break. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
If you believe that you are totally depraved by nature than you agree that by nature you are purely evil and void of anything that could justly be called good? Is that what you are saying?
I was agreeing with your statement and identifying myself with:
quote:
all Christians who mourn over their depravity and sin
Those are different things. If you can't see that they are different (when you wrote them), forgive me if I consider you to be equally unreliable in discerning the meaning of Scripture.
I can mourn my depravity and sin without believing I am void of all goodness. Indeed, if I were truly void of goodness, why would I mourn?
quote:
If you are referring to John Wesley than I would point out that John Wesley claimed that he wasn't saved (as late as 1767)
Where does it say in your quote that Wesley claimed that that he was not saved? It doesn't.
My point was that, saved or not, Wesley makes it into your stated definition of Calvinist for mourning sin and worshipping God.
quote:
If you are referring to Arminians in general... I would point out: 1. What the Scripture affirm in Galatians 1:8-9 and 2.
I actually read that, and guess what I found? Apparently St Peter, that rock on which Jesus wanted to build his Church? Not a Christian! Condemned, in fact. An accursed heretic. St Barnabas, too. Dear me, but Wesley's in good company.
Galatians 2 makes clear that St Peter was once (wrongly and insincerely) guilty of the fault that St Paul condemned in Galatians 1:8-9 - he acted as if a particular external work (circumcision) was necessary to accept the gospel.
Now I've always understood that St Peter was wrong in this instance, but I'm sure you will agree with me that being wrong didn't in fact put him outside the church. Then it must follow that the circumcision party at Antioch was also wrong, but not necessarily outside the church. And that the wrong side on the [Calvinists]/[Arminians and friends] debate, whichever that may be, is also wrong but, praise God, may yet be saved.
I asked:
quote:
Would you care to explain at what point misunderstanding or error becomes hatred of truth and let us know by what spiritual authority you are empowered to know the thoughts of men's hearts and make the distinction?
You haven't answered. You simply assert that salvation by works is heretical. Granted that (which by no means all Christians do, unless St James is to join St Peter in condemnation), it is still a heresy that a Christian might honestly believe. She might believe it because she believes it to be taught with authority (much as you believe Calvinism has Scriptural and Reformed authority) even if she dislikes the idea.
So do you:
1) Think that error is always hatred of truth?
2) Think that error becomes hatred of truth if the error has been condemned by the Authority of the (reformed) Church?
3) Think that error becomes hatred of truth when it differes from a reformed view of Scripture?
4) Apply some other test?
The problem you have is that Calvinism is itself seen as a heresy. Your defence of it is that men you affirm to be totally depraved and void of all goodness have taught it. If you are wrong to accept that teaching, it follows that you are a truth-hating heretic, just as I am if you are right. Yet we have both believed the promises to God in Christ Jesus for our salvation. Who can say without presumption that we are not both saved?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Promises OF God. Not TO God.
I shouldn't be awake this early on a bank holiday. My internal clock is certainly totally depraved, even if nothing else is.
--------------------
"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
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Eliab:
quote:
Those are different things. If you can't see that they are different (when you wrote them), forgive me if I consider you to be equally unreliable in discerning the meaning of Scripture.
One cannot truly mourn over their wickedness if they claim that some of their wickedness is actually good.... or be humbled before God while they are insisting on "some" of their natural goodness. Wouldn't you agree? Scripture teaches that the natural man is wholly wicked in his entire person (Genesis 6:5; 8:21, etc.)
quote:
I can mourn my depravity and sin without believing I am void of all goodness. Indeed, if I were truly void of goodness, why would I mourn?
According to our old nature we are still totally depraved by nature. Yet as Christians the old nature does not have complete dominion over our person in thanks to the work of God. Our mourning over sin is not our gift to God, but God's gift and work to us in our lives (Ephesians 2:8-10).
quote:
Where does it say in your quote that Wesley claimed that that he was not saved?
"I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen."
quote:
My point was that, saved or not, Wesley makes it into your stated definition of Calvinist for mourning sin and worshipping God.
No. Because Wesley believed in a conditional gospel that he himself said was a "hairsbreadth" from salvation by works. One can say as Wesley did that on the one hand we are saved by God's grace and than take everything that you said back with the other hand by setting human conditions.
quote:
Galatians 2 makes clear that St Peter was once (wrongly and insincerely) guilty of the fault that St Paul condemned in Galatians 1:8-9 - he acted as if a particular external work (circumcision) was necessary to accept the gospel.
Yes, and this shows the seriousness of the sin that Peter was engaged in and why Paul confronted him (Galatians 2:11). The difference is that when Peter was confronted with his error, he repented and confessed the truth.
quote:
I'm sure you will agree with me that being wrong didn't in fact put him outside the church. Then it must follow that the circumcision party at Antioch was also wrong, but not necessarily outside the church.
If Peter had not repented of his heretical teaching when confronted, than Peter would have been put outside the church. I think the forcefulness of Paul in Galatians is very clear on that point.
"I would they were even cut off which trouble you." Galatians 5:12
quote:
And that the wrong side on the [Calvinists]/[Arminians and friends] debate, whichever that may be, is also wrong but, praise God, may yet be saved.
No. Arminianism (Pelagianism) is not a petty difference, but a conditional gospel that teaches human sovereignty and natural human goodness. It is not the Truth.
quote:
Would you care to explain at what point misunderstanding or error becomes hatred of truth...
Apologies if I did not answer you question. When one is confronted with the plain teaching of the Scriptures on the subject of grace (eg. The Reformed Confessions, etc.) and rejects such teaching and calls them "evil" than they most clearly have crossed the line of misunderstanding and over to hatred. Dordt for example warns such people:
"Moreover, the synod warns calumniators themselves to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them for bearing false witness against the confession of so many churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak, and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful."
quote:
1) Think that error is always hatred of truth?
I am not suggesting that all error is damnable heresy... but that a false gospel that teaches a salvation conditioned on man... cannot save anyone. It is a good fit with the heresy confronted by Paul in Galatians.
quote:
2) Think that error becomes hatred of truth if the error has been condemned by the Authority of the (reformed) Church?
No. This is only a reaffirmation of the condemnation of Scripture.
quote:
3) Think that error becomes hatred of truth when it differes from a reformed view of Scripture?
No. It becomes damnable heresy when it teaches that by fulfilling certain conditions, a man can be justified of the law (no matter how small those conditions are (eg. "exercise your free will, etc.)
quote:
The problem you have is that Calvinism is itself seen as a heresy.
Only by those who hate the free grace of God and love their own righteousness.
quote:
Your defence of it is that men you affirm to be totally depraved and void of all goodness have taught it.
No. The Scripture clearly teach it and the true churches of God have affirmed what the Scriptures teach as truth.
quote:
Who can say without presumption that we are not both saved?
Ultimately Scripture (John 12:48). And where Scripture speaks... we are to speak. Scripture teaches that (Galatians 3:10): "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
One cannot trust in their good works and Christ. No man can serve two masters.
Reformed in Him,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Barnabas:
quote:
Isn't that at variance with the principle of the perspicuity (plain meaning) of scripture?
Hermeneutics 101 teaches us that we are to compare Scripture with Scripture and use the clearer Scriptures to interpret the ones that are not as clear. All cannot mean everyone head for head in v. 4 or else it would also have to mean everyone head for head in v. 6. and that is the heresy of universal atonement. Scripture teaches an efficious will of God that always achieves it's desired end:
"But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." Job 23:13
How could we beleive the opening words of the Nicine Creed "I believe in God, the Father Almighty" if we deny that God can do all that He chooses to do?
quote:
It really is possible for good and sincere folks to see these things differently.
I agree that there are Christians who disagree about the "free offer" and desire of God in the gospel, although I do think it is a serious error... but not a damnable one (unlike arminianism).
quote:
As a further example, please consider Romans 10 v 9-13
If someone truly believes that Jesus is Lord ("kurios") than they believe that Jesus is the sovereign lord and one cannot attempt to stand on a equal footing with God by negotiating salvation with human works (arminianism) and still fall down before their sovereign lord. There is no place for pride or self righteousness in truely believing that Jesus is Lord.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Your arguments are put with great force and sincerity, and you are clearly well versed. It seems to me to be the nemesis of your position that it de-Christianises all who see things differently to the particular reformed interpretation of scripture which you follow. It really is possible for good and sincere folks to see these things differently.
As a further example, please consider Romans 10 v 9-13. On the strength of it, I confess Jesus is Lord. I believe in my heart God raised him from the dead. And so I will be saved. ANYONE who trusts in him will never be put to shame. The same Lord is Lord of ALL and richly blesses ALL who call on him.
Not "some", not "all types". But ALL. Yes, ALL. Praise His Holy Name.
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Ricardus:
quote:
On the question of Calvinism the Scriptures are at best ambiguous, otherwise this debate would not be possible.
No. Men deny the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc. all the time and still put up what they consider to be a "biblical" defence.
quote:
You are presumably arguing that accepting God's grace constitutes a work, and that Arminianism is therefore salvation by works. The question remains as to whether this is what Scripture means by a work.
A work ("ergon) is anything that we undertake to do. Despite the denial of arminians to the contrary, they are attempting to contribute to their salvation by their own works them they forcefully insist that it was an act of their own will that led them to be saved. They are in effect, attemptint to steal what rightly belongs to God... namely his glory in innitiating and sustaining our salvation.
quote:
Granting grace to some and not to others, when they are in identical circumstances, is inconsistency.
God is not below some form of ethical framework, but is only in subjection to Himself and his own righteousness. God is never inconsistant with Himself or his nature. It is true that God deals differently with men, but this is not inconsistancy "within" God... but a sovereign choice to save some and reprobate others. If we have elect sinner "a" and reprobate sinner "b" it is true that there is no natural difference between them. Both are equally "full of evil", but the fact that God saves the one by paying the price himself is not inconsistant. God owns both of them and is free to do as He wills with what He owns. We often forget that we are not our own. The Heidelberg Catechism says is very beautifully when it says in Question 1:
"Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
Answer. That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ."
Reformed in Him,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I knew very little about Wesley before this thread began. By now I'm rather impressed with him. Many thanks londonderry.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Londonderry,
I’m conscious that our posts are getting progressively longer and more off the main point, so pardon me if I don’t point out all the ways in which you are wrong and just shoot at this open goal:
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
If Peter had not repented of his heretical teaching when confronted, than Peter would have been put outside the church.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) What?!?
Do you mean he would have no longer have been a Christian, and would have lost his salvation, if, by the exercise of his free-will (a work of man) he had concluded in error that circumcision was part of the gospel?
Because if you do mean that – then it is possible to reject God’s grace, which I think we can be fairly confident from Scripture was offered to St Peter. God’s call is not irresistible, the saints need not persevere, and there is no longer any logical reason for supposing the atonement to be anything except gloriously available to all.
But if you do not mean that St Peter would have been damned by his error (just barred from communion or the like) - then you can carry on believing in Calvinism as true, but you have to drop the idea that Arminians, Universalists and Pelagians are necessarily damned because of their various errors. And poor old John Wesley, who’s been spinning in and out of heaven like a yo-yo during this discussion, ends up smack in the hand of God. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
The same argument works with any case of apostasy from Calvinism – I’m sure you know of many – if the new Arminian (or whatever) is still saved then one need not be a Calvinist to be saved. If not, one can reject the faith, and Calvinism is untrue.
Unless the person was “never a real Christian in the first place” (which doesn’t apply to Pete, but is the standard fallback argument in any other instance), in which case, while the “real Christians” cannot be lost, we also can’t know who they are, or even if we are real Christians ourselves, because real Christians are apparently indistinguishable from pre-apostates. And (because it is axiomatic that one can accept the gospel only by grace) we then have a third class to add to the irrevocably saved ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) and the irretrievably lost ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) – those whom God calls and predestines to accept Him intellectually and then to fall away. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) Presumably because (and this is the real problem I have with Calvinism) God likes playing vindictive little games with His Creation.
I don’t disagree with you that God has the right to play such games. He made and owns everything. The point is that to do so, though within his rights, is less good, less merciful, less just, less loving, less holy and less perfect than I believe that God is.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Was this discussion pre-destined? Is my response to your fairly unconvincing arguments, Londonderry, pre-determined? Mind you perhaps you believe that you were predestined to make those arguments and that you can't therefore be held responsible for the quality of them.
Do you actually believe you have free-will?
I think we should be told
Luigi
[ 02. May 2005, 10:15: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's possible I haven't seen the problem here. You seem to think it is an issue that 1 Timothy 2;4 is true and yet (on the calvinistic, and i would argue biblical view) some are condemned.
Yes, it is an issue, and something that I feel I must resolve in order to be able to confess Christian belief.
quote:
My answer, and as I say it may be that I haven't seen the problem clearly, is that God can want two things and yet only one of them can come to pass. eg "Thou shalt not murder" — yet it was the plan of God that his Son be murdered. Two conflicting wills, one outcome.
If you'll forgive me, you're just restating the problem without attempting to come up with any coherent explanation of why this is so. I would suggest that what you're not quite saying is, it's more important to God that his Son be murdered than that the murderers do not murder and you're dodging the question of what it is that separates God's competing desires.
quote:
There are plenty of analogies in our experience. If you pray "Your kingdom come" you are praying that God would return to separate the sheep from the goats in final judgment. Yet this would involve judgment on any friends and family who knew the truth about God and continued to refuse to bow the knee to Him or acknowledge him in any way as their Lord, or allow even that knowledge of Him is possible. Yet Christians pray that those who don't know God would come to know him and love him.
This is a consequence of your own theology and I do not share it. It suffers from condemnation of those who have not openly confessed their faith and usurps, in my opinion, Christ's role as judge of the living and the dead. I note that you were careful only to condemn those who have heard the message and rejected it, and I would point out that this seems to imply that one is better off not hearing the Gospel. Calvinism seems to me to be shot through with these inconsistencies.
quote:
Such prayers contradict our desire that God would come to judge the world with justice.
Only in a Calvinist framework. I can throw post-mortem evangelism into the mix and open up the possibility of Universalism even in Calvinist soteriology, and to deny it I think you would have to deny the validity of a deathbed conversion and thus the parable of the workers.
To me, these issues all demand answers, and Calvinism's answer seems to be at best "we don't know why" and at worst "because God hates some people unreasonably and arbitrarily".
quote:
By the way, this example doesn't require that you subscribe to the beliefs I've just outlined. All it requires is an acknowledgment that Christians can and have thought in this way and, in so doing, not involved themselves in irreconcilable contradiction. They, like God, want two different things and only one of those things can come to pass.
Well, okay, you are making a reasonable argument here, but you haven't stated the basic Calvinist assumption, which is as far as I can tell, that God desires the eternal torment of some sinners more than he desires the salvation of all. I can see the Scriptural passages that lead you to believe this, but it looks to this non-Calvinist as though you can't see the others, and the overall themes and meaning of God throughout history calling, not forcing, his people to love and trust him. I don't know why this is.
In the end I'm faced with two options:
1. God wants all to be saved, but he also wants some not to be saved for no apparent reason and definitely not because of anything these not-saved could have done about it, and the latter is more important to him. His purpose in creation is therefore to create people to punish but luckily some of us escape because he's also arbitrarily merciful. Freedom does not exist, every bad thing that happens however evil is God's direct doing.
2. God wants all to be saved, yet some are not. This is because at least an element of being saved is for us to want to be with God, to want to be saved, and to speak of being saved against our will is meaningless gibberish. Thus God saves all those for whom salvation is possible, and the statement "God is love" turns out to be true after all. Evil is a consequence of reality, that freedom must be risked for love to exist, and it is not God's will that evil should be, but as you rightly point out, some desires are logically incompatible. To overcome this evil, God became Man, lived, suffered, died, was resurrected, and ascended.
I choose 2 on the basis of, in no particular order, my own reading of Scripture, the witness of the Church as a whole, and my basic starting point that God is good.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
God is never inconsistant with Himself or his nature. It is true that God deals differently with men, but this is not inconsistancy "within" God... but a sovereign choice to save some and reprobate others. If we have elect sinner "a" and reprobate sinner "b" it is true that there is no natural difference between them. Both are equally "full of evil", but the fact that God saves the one by paying the price himself is not inconsistant.
I wonder how happy you would be to discover at the Last Judgement, londonderry, that you yourself were reprobate. Would you simply shrug your shoulders, confess that God is loving and merciful in spite of his decision not to save you, and steel yourself to submit to annihilation or eternal torment, praising God as you went?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I can throw post-mortem evangelism into the mix and open up the possibility of Universalism even in Calvinist soteriology, and to deny it I think you would have to deny the validity of a deathbed conversion and thus the parable of the workers.
To me, these issues all demand answers, and Calvinism's answer seems to be at best "we don't know why" and at worst "because God hates some people unreasonably and arbitrarily".
There's plenty for me to think about in your excellent post, GF, but I'm just going to pick this one out as it's pretty close to the heart of the question of justice in Calvinism.
I am attracted to the idea of universalism within a Calvinist framework; not post-mortem evangelism as I don't see that anywhere in Scripture. Possibly death-bed conversion then? If I was committed to finding it in the Bible, I don't think I could contradict it directly from any one passage of Scripture (let's leave Judas out of it for the mo). That probably damns the option with faint praise from my point of view, but I would like it to be true.
Of the two options you've presented, 'I don't know' vs an 'unreasonable hate-filled God', you are not going to die of shock when you discover that I prefer option one, and indeed that I think it's the only one the Bible leaves open to me. I don't know why he chooses some and not others. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are going to come back on this, and I hear Ricardus in the background mumbling about the simplicity of God and will need to respond there too. For the moment, though I will say that lack of knowledge is never something I have felt trouble admitting to, especially coram Deo, before God.
Is this a cop-out? Possibly. If it could be demonstrated to me that I am believing an absurdity — that God could make square circles, for example — and cloaking it with the language of mystery to cover up a nonsense, then I am in trouble.
for the moment, though, I believe my ignorance lines up with that of the Bible writer when he records Moses as saying:
Deut. 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
Deut. 7:7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples,
Deut. 7:8 but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."
which to me amounts to saying that he saves because he says he will, and he does what he says, and we don't know why he said it but he did.
[ETA Mousethief: thanks for your message, see my PM]
[ 02. May 2005, 11:39: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
God is never inconsistant with Himself or his nature. It is true that God deals differently with men, but this is not inconsistancy "within" God... but a sovereign choice to save some and reprobate others. If we have elect sinner "a" and reprobate sinner "b" it is true that there is no natural difference between them. Both are equally "full of evil", but the fact that God saves the one by paying the price himself is not inconsistant.
I wonder how happy you would be to discover at the Last Judgement, londonderry, that you yourself were reprobate. Would you simply shrug your shoulders, confess that God is loving and merciful in spite of his decision not to save you, and steel yourself to submit to annihilation or eternal torment, praising God as you went?
Not praising God.
Rev. 16:10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish
Rev. 16:11 and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
