Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Theological incoherence or theological nuance?



Show me the incoherence in the position I've outlined.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
InGoB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, this neither surprises nor shocks me as the Orthodox believe the same - but neither the RCs nor the Orthodox are saying that people who do so are necessarily damned.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Now I'm confused.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, the RC Church does, officially, take a very dim view of the salvific chances of those who knowingly depart the fold, just as it does if anyone has a quick wank. But as you will well know, presumably as someone who is guilty of the latter rather than the former, there are ways around that ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

If that sounds far too exclusive, then how would it sound if an evangelical, say, said that whilst they wouldn't want to pontificate about the eternal destiny of someone in Outer Mongolia who had little chance to hear the Gospel, they believed that their salvation would be on a surer - or a completely sure - footing had they heard the Gospel, responded in faith and became an active member of one or other of the various Christian churches.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB
I find the ease with which most people make up God's mind for Him quite astonishing. This basically comes back to the fact that even most non-universalists are almost-universalists these days. Basically, the thinking goes, if God is offered the slightest opportunity to save us, He will.

---

quote:

---

But why may we not lay down that the reprobate and wicked are of the true Church, when they can even be pastors and bishops therein? That is certain: is not Judas reprobate? And yet he was Apostle and bishop...

---

quote:

---

All this corresponds with the holy word of Our Lord (Matt. xxiii. 2), who considered the Scribes and Pharisees as the true pastors of the true Church of that time, since he commands that they should be obeyed, and yet considered them not as elect but as reprobate.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I will say that the ball is not in God's court as far as willingness to save people is concerned.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
This is really quite blasphemous.

---

It's apparently BLASPHEMY to say that God is willing to save all!!

I've heard it all now.

God help 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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
I said it was blasphemous to say that God has to save. There is quite a big difference.

---

Nope. Not if logic means anything there isn't.

I think it's really quite blasphemous to say that there is a conflict between God's will and God's actions.

If you want to believe in a God, who is afflicted by an internal conflict, that is up to you. I won't be joining you. (Funny, but Jesus said something about things "divided against themselves"!).

But, of course, you simply cannot see how the concept of saying 'yes' to a gift is not equivalent to earning it. If I receive a gift at Christmas, I must remember that when I receive it from the hands of the person giving it to me, and I then perform the hard labour of ripping off the wrapping paper, I have then quite obviously earned that gift by the sweat of my brow!! (Hmmm... very strange... )

Furthermore, I really cannot imagine why God consistently and persistently calls people to repent, if the ball is not in man's court?

"I command you to do something, even though it's all down to me, and you can't do anything."

Spot the contradiction in the above statement.

Answers on a postcard, please...

--------------------
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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
He saves. Period. It's not a question of trying to persuade God to save people, because the One who "desires all people to be saved" needs no persuasion in that regard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So, looking at the witness of Scripture, I assume you would agree that St Francis of Sales was wrong? If not, why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And if you perhaps think he was wrong, then presumably you would argue that there are no evil leaders in the RCC, from whose ministry people could legitimately flee?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
So, how do you explain the difference between the person who eagerly unwraps this gift and the person who casts it aside with a cursory, "no thank you"? Now please read what I said carefully before answering. How do you explain the difference between the one who accepts and the one who refuses the offer? I'm not just asking to the describe the difference, I'm asking you explain it. What, if any, qualitative difference exists between those two people both prior to and after the event of acceptance?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Reading the discussions in the Calvinism and tradition threads, I can't help but feel that some Christians really think that if God has saved us by a certain method (be it his sovereign choice or through conformity to a version of the "One True Church"), then it follows logically that those not subject to or in conformity to those methods, are damned. In other words, my salvation implies your damnation.

This is the binary psychology of religious fundamentalists.

If God demands something of me, then it must be the case that he demands it of everyone else. Those, after all, are the rules, are they not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas classical Calvinist predestination seems to line up with the universalists as saying there is no condition to be met, no deed to be done or not done.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I know next to nothing about classical Calvinism. But I was under the impression that their take on salvation does not change the requirement of good deeds, it just moves it from cause to effect.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB
That's a funny question, given that you have cut away all of de Sales' scriptural references, except for one, which you nevertheless manage to ignore: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matt 23:2). For those who do wish to get the actual - very scriptural - argument of de Sales, rather than EE's mutilated version thereof, see here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes, there is one verse in Matthew 23, which indicates that the Scribes and the Pharisees had some kind of religious authority - verse 2, which you quote - but to lift that out of the whole context of the chapter seems somewhat reckless to me (and an act of 'mutilating' the witness of Scripture, to use your word).

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
At the most jejune level, it's applicable to everyone but the universalists amongst us.

---

{Hands out convenient pamphlets on universalism.}


I grew up in a non-denom. fund. church. (Not the foaming-at-the-mouth kind.) Thinking about salvation was much as MT outlined. You were supposed to make an individual, conscious decision to "accept Jesus into your heart". (Discussions of that would sometimes refer to the voice that told Augustine that "God has no grandchildren".)

This also caused deep worry in kids who'd grown up in the church and couldn't point to a specific incident of choice. Were they really saved, or were they (all unknowingly) going to hell? I was lucky to have a specific experience when I was very young, and I did mean it at the time. But I said many "God, if I'm not already saved..." prayers over the years.

There was, however, the "sheep and goats" clause, for people who had never heard the gospel. (Counter to that: I read an anecdote about a missionary to Africa who was approached by a local resident. "Is it true that, if we'd never heard of the gospel, we wouldn't be judged against it and go to hell?" "Yes." "Then why in the world did you come???")

Kids' salvation also presented a problem, generally solved by an "age of responsibility". Thoughts about the age varied; but 12 was most common, based on both when Jesus went off on his own to debate at the Temple and also on Jewish coming-of-age traditions..

As to One True Church, Us vs Them, " 2, 4, 6, 8, God won't let YOU through the gate" theology and behavior: It's terrible. OTOH, it's what humans do: split into groups; worry about Them; emphasize differences from Them; define own rightness in terms of "we're scared, but we must be right, so They must be wrong, otherwise we aren't right and we'd have to be all scared again". Happens in religion, politics, music, etc.

It's about fear and power and safety. For me, universalism counteracts that. And lets me sleep nights.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
So, how do you explain the difference between the person who eagerly unwraps this gift and the person who casts it aside with a cursory, "no thank you"? Now please read what I said carefully before answering. How do you explain the difference between the one who accepts and the one who refuses the offer? I'm not just asking to the describe the difference, I'm asking you explain it. What, if any, qualitative difference exists between those two people both prior to and after the event of acceptance?

---

Well, firstly I will approach this question of the operation of human free will from a biblical point of view, and not from a point of view of your choosing.

We know that human free will exists. If that is not the case then Isaiah 5:1-7 (for example) makes no sense. The challenge of this passage was blatantly ignored on the Calvinism thread, so I will remind you of it here. God expected His vineyard to bring forth good grapes, and He resourced it to do so. The text is absolutely crystal clear, and there is no wriggle room for the predestinarian: both God's will and provision are affirmed - "I expected it to bring forth good grapes... what more could have been done to my vineyard that I have not done in it?" And given the severity of God's judgment on His rebellious vineyard, this passage cannot be dismissed as having nothing to say about salvation and condemnation.

Now this vineyard represents potentially two types of people:

1. Those who respond to God's provision and bring forth good grapes (please note that God's will is that ALL members of His vineyard should come into this category).

2. Those, who receiving the same provision from God, rebel against Him and bring forth wild grapes.

Now clearly the distinction between these two groups of people has not been caused or willed by God. So where is the source of the distinction? It is in man. And it is not human weakness, or fate, or original sin, or a totally depraved human nature which determine a response, because God has overruled all of that with His provision of grace.

Therefore there is only one factor that explains this distinction:

free will.

---

quote:

---

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit – fruit that will last – and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, I don't think I was mutilating St Francis de Sales' version. He was using the Scribes and the Pharisees as an example of corrupt church leaders, to justify the Catholic Church being the True Church despite occasionally being led by rogues. Yes, there is one verse in Matthew 23, which indicates that the Scribes and the Pharisees had some kind of religious authority - verse 2, which you quote - but to lift that out of the whole context of the chapter seems somewhat reckless to me (and an act of 'mutilating' the witness of Scripture, to use your word).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Likewise, if someone encounters religious leaders like this in their own church, they should not use that as an excuse to turn their back on God (and we know that many people do turn to atheism, for example, because of a bad experience thay have had in their church). However, they are entitled to give these leaders a wide berth. The implication of all this is that such people should find fellowship elsewhere. This therefore rather undermines St Francis de Sales' argument in favour of the Catholic Church being the "True Church". If he admits that such a gallery of devilish rogues could be in leadership in that church, then how can he require people to submit to that leadership? I would have thought that any godly teacher would understand why people want to seek fellowship elsewhere when faced with such a scenario.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I wholeheartedly agree that no church is perfect, but there is a difference between leaders beset by human weakness and frailty and those who are wilfully evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, we could argue that those who are dissatisfied with the Church should seek to reform it from within. True. But what if the leadership is resistant to reform? Then schism is inevitable, and it is not the fault of the schismatics, but of those who forced their hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Going back to St Francis de Sales' example: he claimed that the Scribes and the Pharisees were the leaders of the True Church of the day, but Christianity - and therefore by extension the Catholic Church - broke away from this "True Church"! Ironic therefore that he argues against schismatics.

---

code:

---

 God (Jesus)                 God (Holy Spirit)
 |        /'\                   |        /'\
command    |                   command    |
 |       obey                   |       obey
\./        |                   \./        |     
Scribes/Pharisees              bishops/pope
 |        /'\                   |        /'\
command    |                   command    |
 |       obey                   |       obey
\./        |                   \./        |    
ordinary Jews                 Catholic laity

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
So, how do you explain the difference between the person who eagerly unwraps this gift and the person who casts it aside with a cursory, "no thank you"? Now please read what I said carefully before answering. How do you explain the difference between the one who accepts and the one who refuses the offer? I'm not just asking to the describe the difference, I'm asking you explain it. What, if any, qualitative difference exists between those two people both prior to and after the event of acceptance?

---

Well, firstly I will approach this question of the operation of human free will from a biblical point of view, and not from a point of view of your choosing.

We know that human free will exists. If that is not the case then Isaiah 5:1-7 (for example) makes no sense. The challenge of this passage was blatantly ignored on the Calvinism thread, so I will remind you of it here.

---

quote:

---

"a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
it is not because you do good that you are saved, rather you are saved and hence you do good. Deeds are an expression of rather than condition for salvation. Nevertheless, in practice this means that good deeds remain a reliable indicator of salvation (correlation exists whichever way causation flows).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
daronmedway -

I haven't got much time at the moment to give a longer response, but I will say that your interpretation of Isaiah 5:1-7 makes a complete mockery of God's grace and character. It is saying that His grace is irresistible when directed towards unbelievers, but believers can completely and utterly resist it, to the point where God burns them, breaks them, tramples them down, lays them waste, to the point at which they bring forth only briers and thorns and therefore become completely fruitless (see the judgment described in Isaiah 5:5-6).

If this only refers to those who are 'saved', then why does God say of them that He looked for justice, but only found oppression? Why did they utterly resist God's work in them, and turned all the goodness of God to evil (producing wild grapes from the provision of God's goodness)?

If you really think this is only a description of people who are saved and eternally secure, and who are merely being sanctified, then salvation and sanctification are words that mean absolutely nothing at all in your way of thinking.

Furthermore, what do you understand by Jesus' sayings: "By their fruits you will know them" and "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit"?

Think about it, please.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Or saying that you think Calvinists think it's reliable ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The saved soul may join any worshipping community, say any prayer, practice any rite of worship, pursue any virtue, work for any good cause, etc without casting any doubt on the sincerity of their Yes thereby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Inferring the damnation of those who don't express their religious impulse in the particular ways that a particular community recognises as legitimate is perhaps the error being highlighted here ?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The saved soul may join any worshipping community, say any prayer, practice any rite of worship, pursue any virtue, work for any good cause, etc without casting any doubt on the sincerity of their Yes thereby.

---

Bullshit. And no, I do not need to argue that. You assert, I assert back...

...perhaps you should start supplying evidence and argument?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
The passage you are citing is typological and prophetic, not doctrinal. If you ignore the redemptive typology of the Exodus, you miss an entire aspect of the biblical meta-narrative.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
Israel's failure to bear fruit has precisely nothing to do with "free will" and precisely everything to do with the effectual calling and grace of God upon his New Covenant people.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
Israel's failure to bear fruit has precisely nothing to do with "free will" and precisely everything to do with the effectual calling and grace of God upon his New Covenant people.

---

It is absolutely nonsensical to say that Isaiah 5:1-7 has nothing to do with free will.

Why do you think the vineyard brought forth wild grapes, when God expected it and resourced it to bring forth good grapes?

Was it due to the will of God? Or the will of man?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
The answer is Christ the. Messiah, not "must try harder".

---

Who said anything about "must try harder"??

By the way... concerning your children: I assume you don't destroy them when they disobey you? Just askin'...

--------------------
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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
The answer is Christ the. Messiah, not "must try harder".

---

Who said anything about "must try harder"??

By the way... concerning your children: I assume you don't destroy them when they disobey you? Just askin'...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent of course.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Indeed.

Exposing the absurd is what I do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent of course.

---

Of course, we all have our different takes on the Bible, but there is a limit to this. And I think that denying that free will is operative in the events described by Isaiah 5:1-7 is stepping over the line into absurdity.

---