Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Calvinism and God's character
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: ...for Christians who limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination or church...
Who would that be?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: ...for Christians who limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination or church...
Who would that be?
Hypocrites, mousethief, hypocrites.
It seems odd that a God who limits atonement on the basis of his sovereign choice is to be deemed monster but if he does it on the basis of the liturgy he prefers, he's in the clear. [ 09. November 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: ...for Christians who limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination or church...
Who would that be?
Hypocrites, mousethief, hypocrites.
Assuredly. But to which Christians do you refer? I can't think of any non-restorationist churches that limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Daronmedway quote: The challenge is to accept the revelation that God does indeed desire that all be saved, that Christ's death was in some senses for the whole world but is, nevertheless, in some way especially effectual for a particular group of people.
If by "desire" you mean it's God's sovereign will that all be saved, then from a Calvinistic standpoint that's that. Amen. It's difficult to see, therefore, what is meant by "especially effectual for a particular group of people", at least in terms of ultimate treatment, unless there's some sort of class structure in heaven. If Christ's teaching and example means anything, however, it is that Grace does not have to be rationed, which is a problem for many Christians as it was for the elder brother in the parable! I suppose, nevertheless, a favoured category could refer to those blessed with an assurance of that general salvation in this life.
If the ultimate logic of Calvinism is universalism then it would seem to trump Arminianism, though perhaps the possibility of some being disposed to reject the beatific vision cannot be ruled out.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: I can't think of any non-restorationist churches that limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination.
The Roman Catholic Church has taught this, although the doctrine appears to have been diluted in recent years.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kwesi: Daronmedway quote: The challenge is to accept the revelation that God does indeed desire that all be saved, that Christ's death was in some senses for the whole world but is, nevertheless, in some way especially effectual for a particular group of people.
If by "desire" you mean it's God's sovereign will that all be saved, then from a Calvinistic standpoint that's that. Amen. It's difficult to see, therefore, what is meant by "especially effectual for a particular group of people", at least in terms of ultimate treatment...
Not my words! Here's a verse that'll please Arminians and Calvinists. quote: That is why we labour and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.1 Timothy 4:10
Apparently God is the Saviour of all people, but somehow especially of those who believe. Make of that what you will, but there's one one thing about this verse of which I'm sure: it doesn't teach universalism.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Daronmedway quote: quote:That is why we labour and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.1 Timothy 4:10
Apparently God is the Saviour of all people, but somehow especially of those who believe. Make of that what you will, but there's one one thing about this verse of which I'm sure: it doesn't teach universalism.
You may be sure, Daronmedway, but I'm not. "Especially those who believe" could refer to those who have the assurance of salvation in this life. There are, however, plenty of verses in the New Testament that more explicitly challenge universalism, aren't there?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by anteater: Cottontail:
In fact one way in which parents gain comfort from this is to get their children to make a decision for Christ at an early age
It is Calvinist parents are in an impossible situation.
All they can say to their kid is, “We have no idea whether or not you are one of the elect, so we will teach you Christian truth, but it won’t have the slightest effect unless and until God chooses to regenerate you. If he doesn’t, because he has used us to create you as one of the reprobate, then we look forward to watching you suffer to His glory for all eternity”.
It is true that all Christians, Calvinist and otherwise, who are not annihilationists or universalists, have to deal with the difficulty of the post-mortem sufferings of the lost, but it is also true that it is only Calvinists, eg Jonathan Edwards, Robert Murray M’Cheyne (and Thomas Aquinas) as far as I know, who explicitly state that the saved are going to relish this spectacle. [ 10. November 2013, 06:56: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kaplan Corday: It is Calvinist parents are in an impossible situation.
All they can say to their kid is, “We have no idea whether or not you are one of the elect, so we will teach you Christian truth, but it won’t have the slightest effect unless and until God chooses to regenerate you. If he doesn’t, because he has used us to create you as one of the reprobate, then we look forward to watching you suffer to His glory for all eternity”.
As I understand it, only a minority of Calvinists believe that some people are explicitly destined not to turn to Christ. Most merely believe God has predestined some to follow Christ, leaving everyone else to make their own mind up.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: O for a trumpet voice, On all the world to call! To bid their hearts rejoice In Him who died for all; For all my Lord was crucified, For all, for all my Saviour died!
Great stuff, Muddy!
And then there is also Charles’s:-
O that the world might taste and see The riches of his grace; The arms of love that compass me Would all mankind embrace.
Charles’s The Horrible Decree is also worth reading.
Here are two of its verses:-
Sinners, abhor the Fiend, His other gospel hear: The God of truth did not intend The Thing his Words declare, He offers Grace to All, Which most cannot embrace Mock’d with an ineffectual Call And insufficient grace.
The righteous God consign’d Them over to their Doom And sent the Saviour of Mankind To damn them from the Womb; To damn for falling short Of what they could not do, For not believing the Report Of that which was not true.
He seems to have been as fond of arbitrary capital letters as was Queen Victoria.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And so it rumbles on ...
Both sides missing the point ... which is that however we view it - in RC, Orthodox, Reformed, Wesleyan, Arminian or whatever else terms the point is that it is God who saves - through Christ. How that works out on the ground and into eternity isn't our call.
I'm with daronmedway on this being behind-the-scenes stage-mechanics but I wouldn't be as prescriptive as he seems to be at second-guessing what those mechanics appear to involve.
He believes that his prayers for Kevin will have been allowed by God in the infathomable counsels of Heaven to influence his eternal decree ...
Presumably, those who invoke Mary and the Saints believe something similar. Daronmedway would say that they were wrong, they would say that he's missing something ...
And so it all goes on and on, people citing this hymn and that verse ...
And meanwhile I wind Zach82 up ...
Mind you, if he'd read my posts properly here he'll have seen that I've been far more accommodating and conciliatory towards Calvinism than I have on previous threads. I've not written it all off ... I don't think I ever have done in fairness.
At the core of it, I believe, is a genuine attempt to interpret certain scriptural emphases which are undoubtedly there - even if they do add 2 + 2 together and end up with 46 ...
Meanwhile, we all continue to misunderstand one another. Daronmedway seems to be implying that the Orthodox - from his descriptions or arcane liturgies and so on he seems to be referring to them - restrict salvation to the boundaries of their own Church.
This is certainly not the case and simply proves that daronmedway ought to pay more attention to what others say on these boards, get out more and fellowship more eirenically than he might do at present - although I'm sure he does to a large extent, already - he can't possibly avoid it as an Anglican priest (sorry, minister) ...
There's too much jumping to conclusions going on and I can be as guilty of that as anyone else.
You can make out a case for any of these views from scripture. But only if you immerse yourself in one or t'other of the various options and traditions and put on their specs.
I'd read 'Jacob I loved and Esau I hated' and the stuff about hardening Pharoah's heart loads of times before I learned to adopt a Calvinistic interpretation of them.
Note that: 'I learned to adopt ...'
All the positions outlined here are learned. We've absorbed them from our contexts and from other people. How could it be otherwise?
I don't know about you, but I suspect that implies a certain provisionality and whilst there's room for conviction, certainly, it ill behoves any of us to make an idol or a rigid rallying post around any of our respective positions on this issue.
That's how I see it anyway - so help me ...
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: As I understand it, only a minority of Calvinists believe that some people are explicitly destined not to turn to Christ.
Calvin himself believed this.
quote: Most merely believe God has predestined some to follow Christ, leaving everyone else to make their own mind up.
Calvin criticises figures such as Augustine for taking this view.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
 Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote: I just cannot understand the mentality of people who are comfortable with (or even reluctantly believe) this concept of God's judgment. They don't seem to possess a proper sense of justice, in which punishment takes into account diminished responsibility and mitigating circumstances. All I can say is that there is nothing in my entire being - spiritual, intellectual, psychological or genetic - that could enable me to appreciate this concept of divine justice. It's not that I refuse to believe it; I simply cannot believe it, and therefore I can't understand how any person of goodwill and intelligence can believe it. Perhaps that is why I assume that someone who does seem to believe it, must have some kind of personal problem.
Well I appreciate your problem, and am interested in whether you are in fact a Universalist, which seems to be the only position that could fit you mindset. And I think there's lots to be said in favour of this, although I think it is out of line with the main thrust of the NT.
But I would advise you to beware of letting your attitude prejudice you against other christians, as it is in this sort of failure to understand, that sectarianism arises.
You start by not understanding how someone who believes in X can possibly be a person of "of intelligence and goodwill" and end up by concluding that they probably are not. Probably also that they are not indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. How could they be and believe something which you see as hugely defamatory of God?
This problem exists on all sides. I knew an earnest couple who expressed doubts about the christian status of the Wesleys because of their lack of belief in what calvinists like to call The Doctrines of Grace.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, and this tendency isn't limited to certain forms of Calvinist, of course.
Coming back to the Orthodox aspect, whilst it is certainly true that the Orthodox don't tend to pontificate about the eternal destiny of those outside their immediate communion, it is possible to come across individual Orthodox who would say that it is inconceivable for Calvinists to be kosher Christians and hold the beliefs they do ... or are accused of holding ...
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by anteater Well I appreciate your problem, and am interested in whether you are in fact a Universalist, which seems to be the only position that could fit you mindset.
Of course, universalism is not the only position for someone who affirms the reality of human free will! God's grace can be rejected, and those who do so damn their souls. How is that position equivalent to universalism? I just can't see your logic here at all.
quote: But I would advise you to beware of letting your attitude prejudice you against other christians, as it is in this sort of failure to understand, that sectarianism arises.
Well, thanks for the (rather condescending) advice, but I really don't think an attitude of honesty will prejudice me against other Christians. But if you really want to give me some sound advice, here's how to do it: show me the argument that justifies the concept of 'justice' which I criticised in the post to which you have responded. Failure to do that will only confirm my so called 'prejudices'.
quote: You start by not understanding how someone who believes in X can possibly be a person of "of intelligence and goodwill" and end up by concluding that they probably are not. Probably also that they are not indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. How could they be and believe something which you see as hugely defamatory of God?
I could lie to you and pretend that people who believe this about God are really indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but honesty compels me to say that blasphemy and the presence of the Holy Spirit do not mix very well. To say that God has created some people for absolutely no other reason than to damn them to hell (and that is true of the infralapsarian 'neglect and passing over' position as it is for the more direct supralapsarian position) is to call God a devil. It may very well be that there are those who pay lip service to this idea of predestination, and who consign it to the area of 'unknown', who are genuine believers and who sincerely believe in the love, compassion, justice and goodness of God. I accept that. But then such a person only believes in the doctrine as a kind of detached notion, and doesn't really accept it in his heart. Fine. I have known such people. Maybe most Calvinists fall into that category, and I think they probably do.
But still, I wonder why such people find it so difficult to accept that God actually is not a respecter of persons, and loves all people, such that He wishes to save all people. Why do they feel such a need to exclude others from the grace of God? Of course, they would probably just say "because the Bible says so..." Clearly that is no answer, because anyone can cite the Bible to support their position. There's clearly a deeper issue. But I guess that is between them and their God.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gamaliel Both sides missing the point ... which is that however we view it - in RC, Orthodox, Reformed, Wesleyan, Arminian or whatever else terms the point is that it is God who saves - through Christ. How that works out on the ground and into eternity isn't our call.
I'm with daronmedway on this being behind-the-scenes stage-mechanics but I wouldn't be as prescriptive as he seems to be at second-guessing what those mechanics appear to involve.
I would say that the question of what God is like is about as fundamental as one can imagine. God's character is the main act on the stage; it's the lead role. If it were hidden backstage, then the play would be a total nonsense. Let's call it the theatre of the absurd, shall we?
How is it possible to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength" when you believe that he is actually a deeply capricious and malicious person (which is what he would be if he created some people for absolutely no other reason than to damn them to the everlasting pit of burning sulphur)?
I find it hard to believe that the "I'm alright, Jack, sod everyone else" attitude is consistent with living in the love of God. This is what Calvinism (or perhaps hyper-Calvinism) seems to be saying: "As long as precious little me is saved by the grace of God, having been chosen by him, then frankly I don't give a monkeys about the fate of those whom God has passed over. If my heavenly Dad is an abuser, I don't care, as long as he treats *me* well."
Me. Me. Me. That's what it's all about.
Of course, we know it's a load of bollocks, because Christ, in deepest agony on the cross, proclaimed that God does indeed take diminished responsibility into account in his dealings with man, hence: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".
Therefore it is impossible for God to condemn someone who could not help being sinful.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what you are getting at here, EE.
I suspect the answer - and you may appreciate this as someone who likes to cite logic and so on (and I don't mean that facetiously) - is that the internal logic of their rather closed position leads them to conclusions that those outside that closed position find reprehensible.
They probably do themselves - Calvin himself referred to the assumptions that lead to later developments of the doctrine of Double-Predestination as, 'that dread decree.'
But what they do is allow the interior logic to over-ride their natural inclinations. Allied to a very pessimistic view of human nature, 'Who am I, a poor vile sinner, to talk back to God?', you can see how it can lead in a coldly logical progression, to the kind of hyper-Calvinism that most of us deplore.
Ok, so there are staging posts along that route and most Calvinists, as you acknowledge, stop off at various points along that continuum.
The same applies with any other doctrine or system we could mention.
Arminians and Wesleyans have sometimes been accused of preaching salvation by works, for instance, some Orthodox are accused of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (although they themselves would mostly reject these epithets).
My own take is that many Calvinists generally take the 'Jacob I loved, Esau I hated' and the hardening of Pharoah's heart thing rather too literally and apply it beyond the context of Paul's discussion of the Jew/Gentile thing into some kind of universal principle.
Some appear able to cope with the hints of a 'wider hope' that we might find within Romans 2 - those Gentiles who have, as it were, 'the law written on their hearts' etc - but others give the impression that they've torn these verses out of their Bibles completely whilst continuing to rant on about Sola Scriptura ...
That's a caricature, of course, and I'm certainly - contra Zach82 - out to tar all Calvinists with the same broad brush.
Ultimately, there are pains in the neck and elsewhere within any Christian confession.
For my own part, I believe that most Calvinists stop short of believing in a Molech-like deity but others come perilously close.
The problem isn't confined to Calvinists, of course.
Daronmedway has already apparently conflated the Orthodox belief that their Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with the belief that only those within that Church can be saved - which isn't what the Orthodox (officially at least) actually believe ...
I would suggest that a similar thing is happening in reverse, that some here (and perhaps myself at times) are projecting onto Calvinists beliefs that they don't actually hold.
That said, I agree with Anteater that there are a lot of mental gymnastics and glosses, wriggling and ducking and diving going on within Calvinism (even in its broadest sense) to make certain verses fit their particular schema.
That shows how Scholastic and Medieval it all is.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kaplan Corday: quote: Originally posted by anteater: Cottontail:
In fact one way in which parents gain comfort from this is to get their children to make a decision for Christ at an early age
It is Calvinist parents are in an impossible situation.
All they can say to their kid is, “We have no idea whether or not you are one of the elect, so we will teach you Christian truth, but it won’t have the slightest effect unless and until God chooses to regenerate you. If he doesn’t, because he has used us to create you as one of the reprobate, then we look forward to watching you suffer to His glory for all eternity”.
That would be like taking my children to see an amazing stage production like Matilda or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and providing them with a running commentary on my personal interpretation of the backstage effects and how they are being achieved. I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.
The wonder of the story? What is so wonderful about the idea of a God who does not love everyone, and has it in for some people? How can anyone in their right mind be enchanted by that?
And why shouldn't the love of God for all people be openly displayed? Is it just too embarrassing, or something? Should we really be encouraging our children to be entranced by a capricious sadist? What sort of moral lesson is that giving them, do you think?
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: And meanwhile I wind Zach82 up ...
Mind you, if he'd read my posts properly here he'll have seen that I've been far more accommodating and conciliatory towards Calvinism than I have on previous threads. I've not written it all off ... I don't think I ever have done in fairness.
I had hoped that would be the case (and people think I'm cynical!) but when I tried engaging you on the matter you fell back again into the usual insults and wind ups mixed with just enough winking emoticons and half apologies to get away with it.
You do it in this post— blaming me for merely assuming you are the same Gamaliel as ever, admitting you were that way, then going on to insist you were just so clever and innocent the whole time.
No thanks. [ 10. November 2013, 12:55: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, fair call. But what I was prodding you about was your tendency to post sweeping comments along the lines of, 'It's in the Bible, so that settles it ...'
It was this apparently simplistic approach that I was getting at. I know you are capable of better than that.
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@EE, a standard Calvinistic evangelical response to your objection, of course, is that what is so supremely wonderful about the Gospel is that anyone is saved at all given the enormity of the offence our sins have given to a just and holy God.
But again, that's getting into the back-stage mechanics.
I can see your point though and it is one which Calvinistic evangelicals have to jump through hoops to elide and sometimes descend to casuistry to resolve.
Other Christian traditions encounter similar dilemmas over different aspects of doctrine.
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gamaliel: Ok, fair call. But what I was prodding you about was your tendency to post sweeping comments along the lines of, 'It's in the Bible, so that settles it ...'
It was this apparently simplistic approach that I was getting at. I know you are capable of better than that.
There's a difference between a simplistic argument and a simple one.
It was posited that the Christian God did not order a man to sacrifice his son, so I countered it with the simple fact that it is, as I said, right there in the Bible. What more can be said? Even if you want explain it away as metaphorical, it's right there.
Meanwhile, my point that God's goodness might not make much sense to us at times has been pretty much ignored so that people can "engage" this "edifice of reprobation" of yours.
-------------------- 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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gamaliel ...a standard Calvinistic evangelical response to your objection, of course, is that what is so supremely wonderful about the Gospel is that anyone is saved at all given the enormity of the offence our sins have given to a just and holy God.
Yes, they may say that, but, of course, it's utterly specious reasoning. There is no offence if those committing it had no choice, and were preprogrammed to act in this way with no hope of repentance or change. It's a bit like God trying to explain to a lion that it deserves to be punished with everlasting torture for catching and eating an antelope. The lion has simply acted out of instinct, in accordance with the way it was created (or it evolved, if you prefer). God, as creator, therefore willed it to act in this way, because he caused it - or allowed it - to be born with that instinct. In the same way, God caused every human being (with the exception of Jesus - and Mary if you're Catholic) to be born into a world in which he knew that we would be infected with original sin. If, therefore, anyone deserves to be punished for possessing a sin nature, then God should also be punished, because he was the one who forced everyone to be sinners.
There is nothing at all wonderful about a God who refuses to take moral responsibility for his own actions.
I remember once giving the following example on a SOF thread:
quote: Suppose a brilliant doctor deliberately took his newly pregnant wife to live in the shadow of Chernobyl shortly after the disaster, and she gave birth to a seriously ill and deformed child. Then they moved away from there, and the doctor performed some amazing surgery on the child (after allowing the poor soul to suffer pain and humiliation for years) and demanded praise for so doing. Furthermore, he claimed to have 'saved' his child from the agony that he (the child) justly deserved, for committing the sin of having been born in the shadow of the nuclear reactor.
Is such a doctor 'wonderful'? Is the message of this boy's healing a glorious one?
I think not.
But try getting that idea through to a Calvinist (or even some Arminians)...
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.
The wonder of the story? What is so wonderful about the idea of a God who does not love everyone, and has it in for some people? How can anyone in their right mind be enchanted by that?
As I said before, non-Calvinists who believe in hell must answer the same question. You're trying to float the doctrine of hell on the doctrine of election.
quote: And why shouldn't the love of God for all people be openly displayed? Is it just too embarrassing, or something? Should we really be encouraging our children to be entranced by a capricious sadist? What sort of moral lesson is that giving them, do you think?
I'm not embarrassed by the love of God. I'm embarrassed by Christians who refuse to allow that love to over-rule their little fiefdoms. However, I do have problems with teaching my kids that they are saved because they've made a wiser choice than their unbelieving friends. I do have a problem with teaching my kids that their salvation can ultimately be subscribed to exercise of their own good sense, the sense that their benighted pagan neighbours just don't have. I can't imagine ever teaching my kids such a ridiculously piddling clever-clogs half-gospel without fear of producing a bunch of presumptuous and arrogant little work-saints. [ 10. November 2013, 13:30: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Is such a doctor 'wonderful'? Is the message of this boy's healing a glorious one?
I think not.
But try getting that idea through to a Calvinist (or even some Arminians)...
How do you explain it then? I mean, God just murdered hundreds of people in the Philippines with a typhoon. God is good, isn't he? [ 10. November 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I hope daron won't mind if I draw out a point from his excellent post.
If we separate predestination from hell, we still have something that Arminians and others have to explain. Why are some people born in places where they will never hear the comfort of the Gospel? Why are there millions more people who, because of where and when they were born, will never be able to think of Christianity as anything but a batch of foreign abstractions?
Calvinists and Arminians alike (real Arminians) have to admit that God must have intended it to happen, since it being a huge accident that half the world will never even know about the omnipotent God of Consolation is too fantastic to take seriously.
On the other hand, we can see why Calvin insists that election is unconditional. God hasn't chosen us to be Christians because we are better people than Buddhists or Muslims. Any half-Calvinism that forgets total depravity and unconditional election is a terrible error.
-------------------- 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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway As I said before, non-Calvinists who believe in hell must answer the same question.
As indeed they can. It's got something to do with something called "free will".
quote: I'm not embarrassed by the love of God. I'm embarrassed by Christians who refuse to allow that love to over-rule their little fiefdoms. However, I do have problems with teaching my kids that they are saved because they've made a wiser choice than their unbelieving friends. I do have a problem with teaching my kids that their salvation can ultimately be subscribed to exercise of their own good sense, the sense that their benighted pagan neighbours just don't have. I can't imagine ever teaching my kids such a ridiculously piddling clever-clogs half-gospel without fear of producing a bunch of presumptuous and arrogant little work-saints.
But it's not about making a "wiser choice". It's about responding to the grace of God. There are not just two alternatives: your mechanistic and deterministic understanding of God's grace, on the one hand, and good works, on the other. We are saved by grace, but this gift can be declined. The acceptance of a gift is not equivalent to earning a wage. Therefore there is nothing to boast about.
But anyway, I hope all your kids are elect. Who knows, but one of them may be reprobate. God could have made that decision, just for the fun of it. He's like that, you know...
(And how would you feel about Him then?)
quote: Originally posted by Zach82 How do you explain it then? I mean, God just murdered hundreds of people in the Philippines with a typhoon. God is good, isn't he?
God does not condemn anyone simply on the basis of original sin. "When sin is full grown, it brings forth death..." (look it up).
As for the typhoon... what, are you saying that you believe that God is not good? Do you believe that he did actually murder those people? If so, then you are worshipping a devil. I prefer Christianity to Satanism myself...
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As opposed to a bunch of presumptuous and arrogant little Calvinists, Daron?
You see what's happening, don't you?
And much as I've clashed with EE in the past and don't always admire the tone he's taking on this one, I'm with him on how mechanistic and deterministic the whole Calvinist thing can sound - particularly when it's dispensed through an evangelical filter.
Either they believe they are unconditionally elected or else they turn into arrogant works-righteousness gits.
Can you see how binary that is?
I was once very, very rude to Calvinists on these boards by asking whether the propensity towards highly deterministic and binary views (such as the one above) were allied to the autism scale.
Of course, I was roundly 'called' on it, and rightly so - it was highly provocative.
But on one level, as much as I regret the offence I caused, I was over-stating my case to make a point.
And the point is this, sooner or later in trying to reconcile the inherent contradictions and paradoxes within their system (and yes, these do exist elsewhere, it's not an exclusivity contest) Calvinists will end up defending the indefensible.
The way around this, of course, is to say, 'ah, but your ways are not my ways, saith the Lord ...'
Well yes, of course they aren't.
I s'pose, to take daronmedway's excellent theatre-stage analogy, I see it something like this:
Zach82, daronmedway, Mudfrog, EE, Kaplan Corday, Mousethief and myself go to the theatre together ... (and I'm sure we'd enjoy it and get along fine)
We watch the play.
As the action's taking place, Zach and daronmedway sit there thinking, 'ah, yes, of course, things work out that way for that character because of God's immutable will in Election ... '
Mudfrog and Kaplan sip their Kiora-bottles (making a trumpet-like brass-note in Mudfrog's case) and think, 'Oho, yes, I see ... the reason things work out as they do for that character is because of prevenient grace, but they are given the assurance they did to stick with it to the end ...'
EE will be sitting there thinking, 'Ok, it's logical how things have worked out and by God's grace the character responded to God's initiative through his free will ...'
Mousethief, being Orthodox and awkward, will see things differently to all the others but will be closer to both EE in some respects and to Mudfrog and Kaplan on other points.
Me? I'll be sitting there reserving judgement until it all pans out ... or at least trying to ...
At the end of the performance, the curtain closes, the applause dies down and the Producer invites us back-stage to show us how it's all been done ...
And, you've guessed it, it's not actually been in exactly the same way as any of us anticipated, although it bears resemblance at some points to them all ...
FWIW that's how I see it ... flawed as it undoubtedly is.
Meanwhile, getting back to Zach82 - yes, fair points, I stand corrected. I was too snarky to you over your recent posts.
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway As I said before, non-Calvinists who believe in hell must answer the same question.
As indeed they can. It's got something to do with something called "free will".
quote: I'm not embarrassed by the love of God. I'm embarrassed by Christians who refuse to allow that love to over-rule their little fiefdoms. However, I do have problems with teaching my kids that they are saved because they've made a wiser choice than their unbelieving friends. I do have a problem with teaching my kids that their salvation can ultimately be subscribed to exercise of their own good sense, the sense that their benighted pagan neighbours just don't have. I can't imagine ever teaching my kids such a ridiculously piddling clever-clogs half-gospel without fear of producing a bunch of presumptuous and arrogant little work-saints.
But it's not about making a "wiser choice". It's about responding to the grace of God. There are not just two alternatives: your mechanistic and deterministic understanding of God's grace, on the one hand, and good works, on the other. We are saved by grace, but this gift can be declined. The acceptance of a gift is not equivalent to earning a wage. Therefore there is nothing to boast about.
So, you want me to believe that the ability to reject God's offer of salvation is evidence of freedom and something that God has given us? No way!
I utterly reject this perverse understanding of "freedom" and "free will". I can do without that kind of "freedom", thank you very much.
No. The only explanation for any person's ability, and certainly anyone's desire, to say no to the living God is a deep, deep enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Saying 'no' to God is an act of rebellion that can only come from a deep enslavement to Satan. It is most categorically not an act of freedom.
To ascribe such a grotesque act rebellion against God as an act of "freedom" is utterly perverse and alien to any biblical definition of freedom. It's a choice, yes, but an act of free will? Never. Saying no to God is the act of a slave, and nothing more. [ 10. November 2013, 15:08: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Gamaliel said: At the end of the performance, the curtain closes, the applause dies down and the Producer invites us back-stage to show us how it's all been done ...
And, you've guessed it, it's not actually been in exactly the same way as any of us anticipated, although it bears resemblance at some points to them all ...
FWIW that's how I see it ... flawed as it undoubtedly is.
This.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
EtymologicalEvangelical:
If saying to "no" to God is evidence of free will then Satan is the most free being in existence.
No, the most free person in existence is Jesus Christ, and he has never said no to God.
Are you really saying that Jesus never exercised free will because he never said no to God?
No. He exercised true freedom; the freedom of always and only saying yes to God.
No. True freedom is always saying yes to God.
I will take my definition and my model of freedom from Jesus, not Satan, thank you very much. [ 10. November 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gamaliel And much as I've clashed with EE in the past and don't always admire the tone he's taking on this one...
The reason I am taking this tone is that I feel that I should be absolutely up-front and honest about how I feel about the idea of God deliberately "passing over" certain people he decided to bring into this fallen world. Evil is evil. It's no good pussyfooting around and dressing up evil in the fine clothes of pious rhetoric.
I resent being made to feel as though I should accept a totally reprehensible and depraved view of the character of God as a legitimate Christian viewpoint, and regard it as merely a difference of emphasis.
The backstage analogy is appallingly wrong. Jesus came to reveal God to man. To say that the very character and nature of God is merely a "backstage mechanism" is to fly in the face of the revelation of the incarnation. The question of what God is like is one of the major themes of the play, if not the major theme. To expel this theme from the stage and consign it to the hidden workings behind the scenery, makes a complete mockery of Christianity.
As a Christian am I really supposed to think like this: "Well, God loves me, and I'm saved. I know he doesn't love everyone and doesn't want to save everyone, and I know that some people have been marked for everlasting torture in the eternal Auschwitz from the moment of their conception - and they can do nothing about it - but I am quite relaxed about that. Because as long as I'm OK, that's all that matters. God can be a complete bastard to other people, as long as he is nice to me, thank you very much..." ?
To quote the late Mrs T. out of context: NO NO NO!!!
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
 Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The freedom is in the choice. The choice may be glad or sad, bad or good, but the choice is the freedom. So when Satan made his choice, it was a free one, but he has been entrapped in the consequences since. If Christ could only have chosen God's way he would be an automaton and his temptation in the wilderness, meaningless. So, yes, he mined the treasures of his freedom. And Satan reaped the rotted fruits of his. We would, too, with all our crappy choices, but God is merciful.
ETA:
Just caught this: quote: As a Christian am I really supposed to think like this: "Well, God loves me, and I'm saved. I know he doesn't love everyone and doesn't want to save everyone, and I know that some people have been marked for everlasting torture in the eternal Auschwitz from the moment of their conception - and they can do nothing about it - but I am quite relaxed about that. Because as long as I'm OK, that's all that matters. God can be a complete bastard to other people, as long as he is nice to me, thank you very much..." ?
To quote the late Mrs T. out of context: NO NO NO!!!
Amen, bro. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) [ 10. November 2013, 16:09: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
-------------------- "Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: So, you want me to believe that the ability to reject God's offer of salvation is evidence of freedom and something that God has given us? No way!
I utterly reject this perverse understanding of "freedom" and "free will". I can do without that kind of "freedom", thank you very much.
No. The only explanation for any person's ability, and certainly anyone's desire, to say no to the living God is a deep, deep enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Saying 'no' to God is an act of rebellion that can only come from a deep enslavement to Satan. It is most categorically not an act of freedom.
This sounds a hell of a lot like the Grand Inquisitor. Freedom to reject or accept God is too much for us. Far better that God makes us into little automotons.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway So, you want me to believe that the ability to reject God's offer of salvation is evidence of freedom and something that God has given us? No way!
I utterly reject this perverse understanding of "freedom" and "free will". I can do without that kind of "freedom", thank you very much.
No. The only explanation for any person's ability, and certainly anyone's desire, to say no to the living God is a deep, deep enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Saying 'no' to God is an act of rebellion that can only come from a deep enslavement to Satan. It is most categorically not an act of freedom.
To ascribe such a grotesque act rebellion against God as an act of "freedom" is utterly perverse and alien to any biblical definition of freedom. It's a choice, yes, but an act of free will? Never. Saying no to God is the act of a slave, and nothing more.
Deuteronomy 30:19 - quote: I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;
God commanding His people to 'choose' life? How strange, considering that He forces them to receive life.
Or what about this one...
Isaiah 5:1-7 -
quote: Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or dug, But there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds That they rain no rain on it.” For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.
Hmmm... bizarre. God expected His vineyard to bring forth good grapes, because He had done everything He could to enable it to do so, but it brought forth wild grapes. I don't get it! If God forces us to do His will, because we are automatons, and God expects a particular outcome, and provides all the resources for that outcome to come about, then obviously that outcome will appear. But the opposite outcome appeared.
Now why was that? Why was the vineyard able to resist and reject the work of God? Why was it able to thwart the will of God? Because God willed it to do so? Obviously not. He expected good grapes. Because God deliberately 'passed over' this vineyard and neglected to do anything for it? Again no. God says He did everything He could for the vineyard to bring forth good grapes.
So if Calvinistic predestination is true, then the vineyard would have definitely brought forth good grapes. The fact that it did not is irrefutable evidence from Scripture that this doctrine is false. The 'vineyard' had the capacity to choose to reject the work of God and bring forth its own evil fruit.
If you can harmonise this parable with your doctrine, then I will unhesitatingly award you the title of The World's Greatest Contortionist.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
 Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I thought liturgy was performed for the salvation of the world, not just the participants...
-------------------- Some say that man is the root of all evil Others say God's a drunkard for pain Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
EE, while I am firmly in agreement with your views (and thanks for the eloquent, clear expression of them), we Arminians do have to acknowledge that there are some Bible passages which seem, at least on the face of it, to point towards predestination.
The Biblical evidence is not as clear-cut as you and I might hope; if it were, then surely predestination would never have become such a widespread viewpoint!
-------------------- 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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: As for the typhoon... what, are you saying that you believe that God is not good? Do you believe that he did actually murder those people? If so, then you are worshipping a devil. I prefer Christianity to Satanism myself...
The typhoon happened and people died. Either God didn't will to stop it or he couldn't stop it. Take your pick—I take providence over chaos.
quote: Originally posted by Mousethief: This sounds a hell of a lot like the Grand Inquisitor. Freedom to reject or accept God is too much for us. Far better that God makes us into little automotons.
So did God choose us to be born in Christian lands because he likes us more than North Indian farmers? Did we become Christians because we are wiser and better people than our Jewish neighbors?
-------------------- 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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Daronmedway quote: The most free person in existence is Jesus Christ, and he has never said no to God.
..........but what is so great about freedom? Why do we seem to assume that God has freedom? IMO he does not have the freedom to do evil, it is not his nature. What sort of choice did Jesus have? Is it conceivable that he could have made decisions other than he given his divine nature?
ISTM that freedom is a characteristic of human beings because they have a knowledge of what is good and evil, but unlike God (or the Devil), are sometimes inclined to do one and at other times the other.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kwesi: Daronmedway quote: The most free person in existence is Jesus Christ, and he has never said no to God.
..........but what is so great about freedom? Why do we seem to assume that God has freedom? IMO he does not have the freedom to do evil, it is not his nature. What sort of choice did Jesus have? Is it conceivable that he could have made decisions other than he given his divine nature?
ISTM that freedom is a characteristic of human beings because they have a knowledge of what is good and evil, but unlike God (or the Devil), are sometimes inclined to do one and at other times the other.
In which case, freedom is to be abhorred. Who would choose the ability to be evil over the possibility of being only good?
-------------------- 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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82 The typhoon happened and people died. Either God didn't will to stop it or he couldn't stop it. Take your pick—I take providence over chaos.
So what are you saying? That God hates the people who died in the Philippines? That they are reprobate?
If so, I'll remember that next time 'God' sends a bunch of tornadoes through the Bible Belt of the USA to kill those reprobate evangelicals!
quote: So did God choose us to be born in Christian lands because he likes us more than North Indian farmers? Did we become Christians because we are wiser and better people than our Jewish neighbors?
Who said that God doesn't like North Indian farmers or Jewish people?
If God is sovereign - as you like to assert - then He has every right to save these people in the way He wants without having to conform to your little scheme of salvation. Perhaps God really is much bigger than your imagination can fathom.
After all... it's supposed to be about God's grace, not conformity to some neat little system, as Bro. Medway has reminded us!!
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Zach82 The typhoon happened and people died. Either God didn't will to stop it or he couldn't stop it. Take your pick—I take providence over chaos.
So what are you saying? That God hates the people who died in the Philippines? That they are reprobate?
If so, I'll remember that next time 'God' sends a bunch of tornadoes through the Bible Belt of the USA to kill those reprobate evangelicals!
You sure like asking questions without ever answering any. The choice put to you is providence or chaos. Take your pick.
quote: Who said that God doesn't like North Indian farmers or Jewish people?
If God is sovereign - as you like to assert - then He has every right to save these people in the way He wants without having to conform to your little scheme of salvation. Perhaps God really is much bigger than your imagination can fathom.
After all... it's supposed to be about God's grace, not conformity to some neat little system, as Bro. Medway has reminded us!!
It's not clear to me that you understand at all what I was trying to say. Hopefully MT will figure it out.
-------------------- 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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82 In which case, freedom is to be abhorred. Who would choose the ability to be evil over the possibility of being only good?
Funnily enough, God doesn't seem to abhor the idea of giving people freedom to be evil, hence the Scriptures I quoted in this post (which have been conveniently ignored - I wonder why?!).
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Zach82 In which case, freedom is to be abhorred. Who would choose the ability to be evil over the possibility of being only good?
Funnily enough, God doesn't seem to abhor the idea of giving people freedom to be evil, hence the Scriptures I quoted in this post (which have been conveniently ignored - I wonder why?!).
For myself, I ignored it because I thought you missed the point completely, both of the passage and the issue at hand.
Right now, you are actually reinforcing my point that God's freedom is not limited by God's goodness, and seem to have no inkling of that fact. God is perfectly free precisely because he is perfectly good. [ 10. November 2013, 19:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82 For myself, I ignored it because I thought you missed the point completely, both of the passage and the issue at hand.
I suppose that's one way of chickening out of facing up to a biblical challenge to your position.
Not very noble of you, I must say!
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
 Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote: Of course, universalism is not the only position for someone who affirms the reality of human free will! God's grace can be rejected, and those who do so damn their souls. How is that position equivalent to universalism?
It isn't. I just thought it fitted best with your views of the character of God. So I was wrong.
I don't know what you believe, and where you are on the evo-liberal spectrum.
If you believe the religion of the likes of Wesley, Hudson Taylor and all arminian evangelicals up to this century, you first of all believe that millions of souls have gone to hell having had no chance to believe and thus be saved. It was that which drove Taylor to labour in China.
So does historic orthodox Wesleyanism also count as blasphemy due to it's preversion of the idea of justice? Like I have said already, it is rare to find non-calvinists who believe that you have to believe in Christ in this life to be saved.
So maybe you go a bit further and believe it makes no difference whether people in this life believe the gospel, unless they explicitly reject it after having heard it. Because God knows all things and knows whether a person would have believed it, given the choice, and treats them accordingly.
But even then, the difference between that and calvinism is so subtle that it is like arguing about angels on pinheads. Because it implies that God knew from the beginning that many would reject it, so that God chose to give existence to those who he knew from the start would go to hell. To me that's not much different to predestination.
Can I also set to rest the old canard that calvinists don't believe in free will. Most of the ones I know do, and I certainly did when I was a calvinist. They may well point out that free-will is an extra-biblical concept, which to be fair is true. You probably can't quote a scripture that shows fallen man has free will. But it's a fairly useful psychological term, and like I said, calvininsts are certainly not believers in determinism.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Zach82 For myself, I ignored it because I thought you missed the point completely, both of the passage and the issue at hand.
I suppose that's one way of chickening out of facing up to a biblical challenge to your position.
Not very noble of you, I must say!
A very graceless conclusion from someone who refuses to answer a simple question himself.
-------------------- 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
|
|
anteater
 Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
John T Ward: quote: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: I can't think of any non-restorationist churches that limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination. The Roman Catholic Church has taught this, although the doctrine appears to have been diluted in recent years.
I thought I'd pick up on this depressingly ignorant piece of RCC-bashing.
Is it even worth asking for some source to back it up? If you can't you could at least retract it.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by anteater: John T Ward: quote: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: I can't think of any non-restorationist churches that limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination. The Roman Catholic Church has taught this, although the doctrine appears to have been diluted in recent years.
I thought I'd pick up on this depressingly ignorant piece of RCC-bashing.
Is it even worth asking for some source to back it up? If you can't you could at least retract it.
See the Wikipedia article I linked to in my original post:
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|