Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:I thought you were an agnostic.
Originally posted by Papio:
I think I will stick with Process Theology really.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:It's Augustine's doctrine.
Originally posted by Moo:
Can anyone explain to me, or point me to books that will explain, why Calvin formulated his doctrine of predestination? I realize there is a biblical basis for the idea, but most people of his day did not take the idea to the length that he did.
What specific situations was he dealing with?
I will be grateful for any information.
Moo
quote:Myrrh
The Spirit only regenerates those that God predestined to be saved. The others are, of course, in no way forced into unbelief, they are simply passed over and left in their natural state, which is just naturally a state of rebellion and unbelief. The early church met in 529 a.d. at the Second Council of Orange to debate the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine's view was officially upheld and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic.
The viewpoint of Augustine, which was, in reality, simply the Calvinistic viewpoint, was known as Augustinianism during medieval times. history of Calvinists
quote:Or, to those of us who are Arminian, it's a doctrine that is neither terrifying nor traumatising because we just don't believe it!
Originally posted by Luigi:
On a psychological level, I think Calvinism is very appealing to those who believe they are predestined. To those who are a little more aware of those around them (who they suspect are not predestined) it is a terrifying doctrine.
Of course those who aren't convinced there is any good reason to be confident that they are predestined themselves it is also a traumatising doctrine.
I guess how you view it, depends on what type of person you are.
Luigi
quote:
“Predestination appears to me just; from my own reflection and experience, I am influenced in a way which is incomprehensible, and am led to do things which I never intended; and if there is, as we all admit, a Supreme Ruler of the universe; and if, as you say, he has the actions of the devils, [they'd had a discussion on "the Book of Job" and Satan's part in it] as well as of his own angels, completely at his command, then those influences, or those arrangements of circumstances, which lead us to do things against our will, or with ill-will, must be also under his directions. But I have never entered into the depths of the subject; I have contented myself with believing that there is a predestination of events, and that predestination depends on the will of God.” from The Life of Byron by John Galt
quote:Or, of course, because he believed he was - as in Confessions of a Justified Sinner. While Hogg didn't publish until the year of Byron's death, the idea of the Elect sinning was there in Burns (Holy Willie's Prayer).
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know how apocryphal the story is, but I heard that Lord Byron lived as such a rake because he believed he wasn't among the Elect.
quote:Let me quote a bit of Alister McGrath, which may shed some light on this off-hand remark: "Calvin is often regarded as making the doctrine of predestination the center of his theological system. A close reading of his Institutes does not, however, bear out this often-repeated judgment...The very location of Calvin's discussion of predestination in the... Institues is significant in itself. It follows his exposition of the doctrine of grace... Logically, predestination ought to precede such an analysis...Calvin's analysis of predestination begins from observable facts. Some believe the gospel. Some do not. the primary function of the doctrine of predestination is to explain why some individuals respond to the gospel, and others do not...Belief in predestination is not an article of faith in its own right, but is the final outcome of scripturally informed reflection on the effects of grace upon individuals in the light of the enigmas of experience..." (Christian Theology: An Introduction, p. 467). McGrath goes on to show how those who followed in Calvin's theological footsteps placed predestination at the center of Calvinism as they further systematized the theology. fWIW
Originally posted by Moo:
I have been reading one of George Macdonald's Scottish novels, and he makes a passing remark to the effect that those who currently embraced and enlarged the doctrine had no understanding of how and why Calvin arrived at it.
quote:It seems part of the Reformation package begun by Luther, an Augustinian monk, much taken with the predestination doctrine and Calvin built on this - in this piece it says the Reformation was "essentially a revival of Augustinianism".
Originally posted by Moo:
What I really want to know is what were the specific circumstances of his time which led Calvin to embrace this doctrine.
I have been reading one of George Macdonald's Scottish novels, and he makes a passing remark to the effect that those who currently embraced and enlarged the doctrine had no understanding of how and why Calvin arrived at it.
Moo
quote:Thanks, Tom. That's the kind of information I wanted. I would still like to know a lot more about the context. What kind of relationship did Calvin have with Luther? with Zwingli? What was the situation in Genevea? These are the questions in my mind. If you can point me to any helpful books, I would be grateful.
Originally posted by tclune:
Let me quote a bit of Alister McGrath, which may shed some light on this off-hand remark: "Calvin is often regarded as making the doctrine of predestination the center of his theological system. A close reading of his Institutes does not, however, bear out this often-repeated judgment..." (Christian Theology: An Introduction, p. 467). McGrath goes on to show how those who followed in Calvin's theological footsteps placed predestination at the center of Calvinism as they further systematized the theology.
quote:This statement does not contradict Calvinism in any way. Think about it.
Whosoever will may be saved.
quote:Whosever will = whoseoever wants to.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said:quote:This statement does not contradict Calvinism in any way. Think about it.
Whosoever will may be saved.
"Whosoever will...". That's right, those that will are elect; those that don't aren't. Simple. Look around you; it's everywhere. Some will; some don't. The statement you've made says precisely nothing to suggest that we are saved by an act of free will. It simply that states that those whoever wills to be saved is saved. If you will to be saved, you're elect. if you don't will to saved you aren't.
John 3.16 - if read explicitly - says nothing to contradict the doctrine of election. An Arminian reading of John 3.16 is a reading that requires eisegesis an on a massive scale. The assumption is basically this: Arminians think that belief is a muscle to be exercised in potential by whoever; Calvinists think that belief is a gift to be received, and whoever God grants belief to is saved.
quote:You still don't get it Mudfrog. "Whoever wants to" does not equal "whoever chooses to of their own free will."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Whosever will = whoseoever wants to.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said:quote:This statement does not contradict Calvinism in any way. Think about it.
Whosoever will may be saved.
"Whosoever will...". That's right, those that will are elect; those that don't aren't. Simple. Look around you; it's everywhere. Some will; some don't. The statement you've made says precisely nothing to suggest that we are saved by an act of free will. It simply that states that those whoever wills to be saved is saved. If you will to be saved, you're elect. if you don't will to saved you aren't.
John 3.16 - if read explicitly - says nothing to contradict the doctrine of election. An Arminian reading of John 3.16 is a reading that requires eisegesis an on a massive scale. The assumption is basically this: Arminians think that belief is a muscle to be exercised in potential by whoever; Calvinists think that belief is a gift to be received, and whoever God grants belief to is saved.
We believe in unlimited atonement.
Christ did not die for the church, he died for the world.
quote:Because the free gift is not the same as the tresspass.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So why doesn't God grant this gift to everyone?
quote:I listened to GW explain why, when we torture people, it is not at all comparable to when them bad terrorists torture people. I didn't exactly follow the explanation, but I suspect that it may be the answer to your question, too...
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And yet those who trespass were predestined to trespass so in what way is punishing them for it just?
quote:One of the most problematic verses of Scripture for the Calvinist is Romans 5.18 which reads:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And yet those who trespass were predestined to trespass so in what way is punishing them for it just?
quote:My question is this: if universal condemnation is unfair - as you seem to suggest - why is univesal salvation deemed to be more 'fair'? Is it not the case that we are judging the "fairness" of the outcome on the basis of our eschatological preferance? You will no doubt say, "No, we judge the fairness of the outcome on the basis of God's character as loving." Which is good. However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
quote:Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
quote:Thanks for that ... much clearer now.
Originally posted by koheleth:
Just to put this interesting discussion in its historical and Protestant context: the starting point for Luther’s, Calvin’s and the other Reformers’ soteriological reflections was that it is God and not the Church who decides who is saved.
quote:Incidentally.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
quote:I know, and this is just one point on which we differ.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
quote:Free grace, freely given and freely recieved. What's not loving about that? What's unjust about that?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
quote:Predestination is Augustine's doctrine. But then its Paul's doctrine as well, and the doctrine of the early church.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's Augustine's doctrine.
quote:The early church believed all sorts of stuff that most people now believe it perfectly reasonable to reject and some stuff that has been proven to be incorrect.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Predestination is Augustine's doctrine. But then its Paul's doctrine as well, and the doctrine of the early church.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's Augustine's doctrine.
quote:My objection as well.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My objection to the above, however, is that it is tantamount to seeing two small boys drowning because in their stupidity they've been larking about in the river, having the ability to save both but only choosing to save one of them.
quote:If you throw each of them a rope and only one takes a hold of it, whose fault is it if the other drowns?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...My objection to the above, however, is that it is tantamount to seeing two small boys drowning because in their stupidity they've been larking about in the river, having the ability to save both but only choosing to save one of them.
...
quote:This being the difference between (classical) "single" predestination and double predestination.
a) How can people who hold that God predestines to heaven, but not to hell, logically hold that position? The arguments seems logically very tenous indeed to me because I simply don't see a significant difference between *being predestined to hell* and *not predestined to heaven where the only alternative is hell". To argue that there is a significant difference strikes me as arguing semantics while souls burn.
quote:That's the nub of the "limited atonement" idea.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did Christ die for the Church or for the world?
quote:Does the blood of Christ keep us in eternal life or is it faith in that blood that saves us? What is soteriologically effecatious: Christ's death or the faith that we put in that death? If you have no faith in Christ's blood you are not saved. However, that does not mean that a person's faith saves a person: no, Jesus saves the person through his shed blood. The blood saves: faith merely appropriates the promised salvation. How does the believer appropriate the promise? By being given faith.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did Christ die for the Church or for the world?
quote:Isn't the problem with this answer that, by proclaiming that those who hear and believe and are predestined to heaven, having been judged righteous - you are saying that they have heard and believed because they were predestined to Heaven.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Or to put it another way, those who believe are showing evidence of already having been judged righteous. It says nothing whatever about those who have not heard the gospel, or don't believe it. God will judge them fairly on the basis of the light given to them.
quote:Predestination is not the doctrine of the early Church, it comes from Augustine. The Church has never taught that God predestines some to salvation or damnation. The Church has always taught that God so loved the world, all of it, every person, and calls all to salvation - in free will. The Church has always taught that we have free will.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Predestination is Augustine's doctrine. But then its Paul's doctrine as well, and the doctrine of the early church.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's Augustine's doctrine.
quote:Not if you're willing to go back as far as the authors of the O & NT scriptures it hasn't.
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
quote:And that is where I have an ethical problem, because to choose some and not others, based in no way whatsoever upon the merits of the individual, seems to be unjust, capricious, arbitary, unloving and, to be frank, downright stupid.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
quote:And it would be fair if it was based in some way on the merits of the individual?
And that is where I have an ethical problem, because to choose some and not others, based in no way whatsoever upon the merits of the individual, seems to be unjust, capricious, arbitary, unloving and, to be frank, downright stupid.
quote:Are you serious?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
How is this unfair?
quote:I never heard anyone claim that Augustine wrote Romans or Ephesians before. I always rather thought it was Paul,
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Predestination is not the doctrine of the early Church, it comes from Augustine.
quote:That's not denying predestination, that's denying the other bits of the tulip.
The Church has always taught that God so loved the world, all of it, every person, and calls all to salvation
quote:Which, depending on how you define "free will" is not neccessarily incompatible with predestination.
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
quote:The Jews have always taught free will, it was established thinking at the time of Christ and, from Christ's words, don't you think it would be a very stupid God that sent prophets to those he'd already damned to hell...
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Myrrh asserts that;quote:Not if you're willing to go back as far as the authors of the O & NT scriptures it hasn't.
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
quote:You sure can't justify that view of God from scripture, can you...
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's worse than unfair, it's diabolical, (and I am not being metaphorical with that adjective). It presents God as capricious, not merciful. It sets him up as an arbitrary tyrant, little better than Stalin deciding whom he will both save and condemn.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:For once, we totally agree.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's worse than unfair, it's diabolical, (and I am not being metaphorical with that adjective). It presents God as capricious, not merciful. It sets him up as an arbitrary tyrant, little better than Stalin deciding whom he will both save and condemn.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Predestination is a 'Gnostic' concept going back to pre Christian times and there are several Jewish arguments against those in Alexandria, their predestination was the claim that they had 'spiritual natures', while others didn't. The Gnostic heresy generally in Christianity is that of thinking one has superior spiritual knowledge in Christ which is denied the rest of the Christians, who remain oiks. Augustine's predestination has that kind of Gnostic base because doesn't he say somewhere that even the baptised don't have a chance of salvation if they're not on the list? Which in effect is a denial that we're created in the image and likeness of God. His immediate influence on this was the Manicheans.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I never heard anyone claim that Augustine wrote Romans or Ephesians before. I always rather thought it was Paul,
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Predestination is not the doctrine of the early Church, it comes from Augustine.
quote:
The Church has always taught that God so loved the world, all of it, every person, and calls all to salvation
quote:Again, God would have to be really stupid to call all to salvation when he's only chosen some to be saved and already damned the rest to hell.
That's not denying predestination, that's denying the other bits of the tulip.
quote:
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
quote:But that's not Augustine's teaching, his predestination says God chose only some and the rest haven't the free will available to do anything about it.
Which, depending on how you define "free will" is not neccessarily incompatible with predestination
In the providence of God the list of all those written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world turns out to be exactly the same as the list of all those who call upon the name of the LORD and are saved.
And some would hope (though the church as a whole never taught) that everybody's name is on the list.
quote:How do you know whether God's decisions are arbitrary?
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It presents God as capricious, not merciful. It sets him up as an arbitrary tyrant
quote:That's how I think free will, our interaction with God, what's prayer if not that?, and, whether he graciously permits it or not.. there's a long standing tradition of arguing with God.
Originally posted by ken:
All that is being claimed by most people in the Augustinian tradition is that they are God's decisions and they are implemented by God's actions. God is sovereign. .........Also a confusion as to what is meant by "free will". Its very hard to pin down. [quote]
Christ's teaching is not of God as sovereign, but as father.
Very hard to pin down, but this is where the difference begins: Augustine's God is the creator of creatures only with the ability to obey or disobey and for their disobedience they were punished with death. There's no real free will in the beginning for Augustine, (and none after, since the progeny of these creatures are only capable of doing evil and not good until Christ came along when they had a chance to choose to do good or evil if baptised, although it actually didn't make any difference since only those who were predestined to be saved would be).
And if it doesn't matter what we do then the moral teachings of Christ are redundant, from this Augustine justified the use of violence, didn't he?
[quote]And surely most Christian views would accept that insofar as our "free will" (whatever it is) can effect the world, it is because God graciously chooses to will what we will, or at least to pewrmit what we will (which would be a sacrifical, kenotic, act on behalf of God)
quote:Not if you don't hold to Augustine's Original Sin scenario, but that we're created in image and likeness of God with free will in a dynamic relationship.
If you believe God to be eternal and omniscient and omnipotent - which is right in the central tradition of Christian thoght about God - and you follow those ideas through you more or less inevitably end up with something like the Augustinian position or "Calvinian" or "Four Point Calvinism" or whatever.
quote:Oh, if it were only that easy. Imagine you're the drowning victim and countless people throw you a rope, but you can only pick one to save yourself. The worst of it is that most if not all of the ropes aren't going to help you. The closest rope is the one your parents picked so you'll likely pick that one. Of course, one alternative is to learn to swim and enjoy the water because maybe that's all there is.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If you throw each of them a rope and only one takes a hold of it, whose fault is it if the other drowns?
quote:If we're talking about who gets into heaven and an omnipotent being, how can it be anything other than arbitrary? Is God forced to make decisions based on moral and ethical codes He didn't set? If it simply takes belief in God/Jesus to reach heaven, who decided that was good enough?
Originally posted by ken:
How do you know whether God's decisions are arbitrary?
quote:How is it even considered free will when every decision has to go through an approval process by another sentient entity? If God can stop any decision I make at anytime, I am not in charge of anything.
And surely most Christian views would accept that insofar as our "free will" (whatever it is) can effect the world, it is because God graciously chooses to will what we will, or at least to pewrmit what we will (which would be a sacrifical, kenotic, act on behalf of God)
quote:Neither can predestination and love.
Originally posted by Skeptic:
Predestination and free will can not coexist.
quote:The teaching of Pharisaic Judaism of the first century, as I have heard her taught, was that all Israel has a share in the life to come. In fact angels were stationed at the gates of hell to snatch away any Jew who inadvertantly wandered there. Any Jews on the ship who can confirm this?
The Jews have always taught free will, it was established thinking at the time of Christ
quote:Where?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Scripture says that God wants all men to be saved.
quote:The wages of sin is death. If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Are you serious?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
How is this unfair?
Look, God is leaving some people to rot in hell, who are no worse then the ones he has chosen.
Or, if you look at it the other way, God is saving people who totally deserve to burn in hell but leaving others.
I honestly don't understand why you don't find that unfair.
quote:...'God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.'
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Where?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Scripture says that God wants all men to be saved.
quote:Look, let me put it this way.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:OK, so let me get this straight. If God didn't let anyone off the hook, that'd be fair. We're all sinners; we all deserve Gehenna.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Look, let me put it this way.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
You and six of your mates freely conspire to rob a bank. You all get your shotguns, each of you shoots several guards in the heist (it's a big bank, run with me on this) and you get caught attempting to make your escape.
At your trial, you're all condemned to life imprisonment, but at the last minute the judge says "Hang on, you're all guilty as hell but I'm letting all six except for you, Numpty, go free. Just because I can, I accept that none of them are better than you but I want to show my mercy, and I realise that that leaves you screwed but that's tough shit."
You're saying you would honestly think that was fair and loving towards you?
quote:I am not a total Arminian in that I do not believe that I can simply decide to be a Christian and then use the capacity of my own faith to accept the atonement.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mugfrog, it is you who limits the atonement by suggesting that, in and of itself, it does not have the power to save. The atonement, according to your view, needs somethimg else to make it work. In other words God needs you to save yourself; you don't need God to save you. God needs you to 'complete' an atonement that isn't fully and intrinically effectatious: it needs the superaddition of your faith (something that doesn't come from God) to 'activate' it. That's works - yes it's a Gucci work - but it's works whatever way you look at it.
You suggest that faith is intrinisc to humanity it is a 'free-floating' capacity that each human possesses and can potentially use to 'activate' an inadequate atonement.
I suggest that the atonement itself purchased the blessing of faith so that God can freely distribute that faith - a direct benefit of the atonement - to those whom he chooses so that they might then put that faith in the atonement as that which saves them from start to finish.
quote:But this is OT atonement.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:OK, so let me get this straight. If God didn't let anyone off the hook, that'd be fair. We're all sinners; we all deserve Gehenna.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Look, let me put it this way.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If God chooses by grace not to pay that wage to some who are you to accuse him of unfairness?
You and six of your mates freely conspire to rob a bank. You all get your shotguns, each of you shoots several guards in the heist (it's a big bank, run with me on this) and you get caught attempting to make your escape.
At your trial, you're all condemned to life imprisonment, but at the last minute the judge says "Hang on, you're all guilty as hell but I'm letting all six except for you, Numpty, go free. Just because I can, I accept that none of them are better than you but I want to show my mercy, and I realise that that leaves you screwed but that's tough shit."
You're saying you would honestly think that was fair and loving towards you?
If God lets everyone off the hook, that'd be fair. We're all sinners; no-one deserves salvation more than another therefore everyone receives salvation.
But, if God decides that he will save certain sinners - people who by very nature are hostile to him and would never choose him without his assistance - he is being unfair.
Your problem is simple: you don't understand the gravity of sin; the hostility of the sinner's heart; or the nature of God's justice.
quote:Explain yourself. This is just a put-down similar to "Oh well, you don't believe so you can't possibly understand."
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Your problem is simple: you don't understand the gravity of sin; the hostility of the sinner's heart; or the nature of God's justice.
quote:(1) Without God's intervention everyone would be lost: this is because sin is serious.
Show me how the gravity of sin or the hostility of the sinner's heart <snip> has the slightest possible bearing on why God will arbitrarily condemn some but not others to Hell on the basis of nothing they've done.
quote:God is both just and the one who justifies. He is the one who metes out punishment for sin and he is the one who dispenses grace to undesverving sinners. If you wish to raise moral objections against God because he is free to be gracious to whoever he likes, then go for it. Jesus told parables about people who take the moral high ground over God.
The nature of God's justice? I don't know what you're getting at. Explain.
quote:I don't think it is.
But this is OT atonement.
quote:You are right to see that the atonement can be limited in either one of two ways: (1) It can be limited in terms of recipient, or (2) it can be limited in terms of salvific efficacy.
You now have to fit Jesus into this - the One who alone has purchased the freedom that can be given to undeserving sinners.
quote:Yes. Repent and believe. Both of which are gifts of God to be exercised by the believer.
The only thing to do is repent - or does God do that for us as well?
quote:Surely this is because we value our concept of fairness more highly than we value God's sovereign dispensation of grace. We allow our concept of what's fair to sully the glory of God's grace. Let me ask you a question: if God chose to save but one sinner from the mass of sinful humanity would it still be a gracious act?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But what I don't get is not so much the some being saved bit but rather its corrollary: that some will be damned not because they are intrinsically worse than those who are saved or perform actions different from those who are saved but simply because God doesn't want to do it. Now, that in my book ain't fair or just.
quote:True and totally irrelevant to my question. Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
(1) Without God's intervention everyone would be lost: this is because sin is serious.
quote:You keep asserting this about your theological opponents without providing a shred of evidence that their disagreeing with you has anything to do with the gravity of sin. I will counter it on your own terms - do you believe that the gravity of sin is such that God's power and mercy could not overcome it universally if he so chose?
2) With God's universal intervention all would be saved: this is universalism which even Arminians claim to reject. This theological concept has no appreciation of the gravity of sin or the wrath of God.
quote:Irrelevant again.
(3) With God's particular intervention some are saved. This is limited atonement or, more accurately, it is particular redemption. This doctrine says that without God's grace a sinner cannot choose him and will simply be to left in their innate, default hostility toward him.
quote:Agreed and irrelevant to the question.
quote:God is both just and the one who justifies. He is the one who metes out punishment for sin and he is the one who dispenses grace to undesverving sinners.
The nature of God's justice? I don't know what you're getting at. Explain.
quote:So what you're saying is, I'm disagreeing with you because I haven't grasped that the nature of God's justice is entirely arbitrary, and that might is right.
If you wish to raise moral objections against God because he is free to be gracious to whoever he likes, then go for it. Jesus told parables about people who take the moral high ground over God.
quote:It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die. The real scandal is that God saves any, not that he saves some.
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
quote:“ …it is not psychologically possible, not even logically possible, to love God with all
Mark 12:29-31
” And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our is one Lord: And thou shall love the Lord thy with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.
There is none other commandment greater than these.”
quote:
“if John said, ‘God is light, but you cannot see his light; you cannot tell, you have no notion, what light is; what God means by light, is not what you mean by light; what God calls light may be horrible darkness to you, for you are of another nature from him!’ Where, I say, would be the
good news of that?”
quote:Why do I feel as though I'm talking to somebody speaking another language that looks like English but has all the words meaning something else, here?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Greyface asked:quote:It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die.
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
quote:Define `deserve'.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Greyface asked:quote:It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die. The real scandal is that God saves any, not that he saves some.
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
quote:No MT it because we value God fairness and character (his name) as highly as we value his power and might (his arm).
Surely this is because we value our concept of fairness more highly than we value God's sovereign dispensation of grace.
quote:James 2:14
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
Why do you want to pitch grace and faith against each other MT Tomb? As if trusting christ is something we can brag about unless we only do it because God has forced us.
Faith is not a work - its just the means by which we obtain what Jesus has done. As an analogy if someone offers you a million pounds which thay have earned through there hard work you can accept it or refuse it - but the person who earned the million pounds has done the work, you are much better off if you accept but you can hardly brag that you are better off because of your own virtue or hard work.
My understanding of scripture is that faith and grace are always on the same side pitched against work.
quote:For those that don't hold Augustine's Original Sin doctrine there is no state of 'all deserving to die because of being born in a total sinful nature'.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Why do I feel as though I'm talking to somebody speaking another language that looks like English but has all the words meaning something else, here?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Greyface asked:quote:It isn't arbitrary; they all deserve to die.
Why is it moral to save some and not others, arbitrarily?
Is God's choice of whom to save arbitrary or not? You seem to have argued from the beginning, that it is. Are you changing your mind?
quote:Firstly forgiveness has to be available becfore it can be accessed. Forgiveness isn't made to order - it's off the shelf. The whole world has been potentially redeemed, forgiveness is provided. God does not, as the scripture clearly states, want anyone to perish and therefore whoever wants to be saved can.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said:quote:I don't think it is.
But this is OT atonement.
quote:You are right to see that the atonement can be limited in either one of two ways: (1) It can be limited in terms of recipient, or (2) it can be limited in terms of salvific efficacy.
You now have to fit Jesus into this - the One who alone has purchased the freedom that can be given to undeserving sinners.
You suggest that it is limited in terms of salvific efficacy. You claim that Jesus died for everyone and yet you refuse to accept that salvation is universal; therefore teh atonement is defective (limited) in some way without the willful addition of faith by a third party, namely the recipient of salvation.
I suggest that the atonement is limited (particular) in terms of recipient. I claim that Jesus' death is effective for those who believe (see John 3.16) but not for those who do not believe (not because it does not cover them but because they have no faith in it). I also suggest to you that the faith that the subject of salvation puts in the atonement was purchased by Christ for the believer on the cross. Saving faith is a blessing that is dispensed by God to the sinner as one of the benefits of the atonement.
Therefore I maintain that the atonement is unlimited in efficacy (through it Christ purchased literally everything) but is limited in terms of recipient. John 3.16 says that 'whoever believes in (Jesus) shall not perish'. So belief is the criteria. Not everyone believes; not everyone is saved. It is possible to perish: so no universalism. But the belief with which one believes belongs to Christ and is dispensed by God unconditionally and upon no basis of merit. No-one deserves to have faith.
quote:Yes. Repent and believe. Both of which are gifts of God to be exercised by the believer.
The only thing to do is repent - or does God do that for us as well?
quote:And now some questions: what does this verse say about man's ability to love God? Who makes that love possible? How is that love made possible? Who exercises that love? Who does the promise of that love extend to? What is the result of that love? Who benefits from the result?
6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
quote:Maybe; yet it was you that used the word `deserve' in a context of this sort, not me.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If that's the case then they don't deserve salvation either, so notions of fairness if salvation is withheld become meaningless.
What you're saying is that we can only 'deserve' something on the basis of sins of commission: which is pelagianism.
quote:Where?
God does not, as the scripture clearly states, want anyone to perish and therefore whoever wants to be saved can.
quote:If they don't come from God, where do they come from? Are they just free-floating virtues belonging to no-one and accessible to all? No. Everything belongs to God. Ephesians 1.3
Secondly, can you tell me where in the Bible both repentance and belief are gifts of God?
I know that grace is the gift of God - not sure where I can read about repentance and belief being such a gift.
quote:I take that to include faith, repentance, joy, peace, prosperity everything. All things come from God and only of his own do we give him.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Where?
quote:He even tried to draw it to your attention again a few posts later. GreyFace referenced one of those verses as well.
Posted way back by Mudfrog:
...'God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.'
1 Tim 2 v 4
'He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.'
2 Peter 3 v 9
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Apologies if I missed them. Regarding the second quote from 2 Peter, please go the front of each of Peter's Epsitles and read who they're addressed to: I think you'll find that they're addressed to 'the elect' (1 Peter 1.1) and those 'who have recieved a faith' (2 Peter 1.1). Peter is addressing the elect: of course God wants them all to be saved.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Where?quote:He even tried to draw it to your attention again a few posts later. GreyFace referenced one of those verses as well.
Posted way back by Mudfrog:
...'God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.'
1 Tim 2 v 4
'He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.'
2 Peter 3 v 9
quote:Isn't predestined to be conformed saying that we have no free will? Was that Origens teaching?
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
Myrrh - I knew as I was posting that I could get pulled up for over simplification and you are right! I tend to oversimplify because I'm too lazy to nuance everything I write.
In terms of salvation faith and grace are pitched against works in Paul's letters - I believe that faith and grace combined always lead to us becoming better people and doing good (indeed we have been predesitined to be conformed to the image of Jesus), but it is grace and faith combined that save us rather than our works.
quote:Sorry. Pop up a link to it and I'll try to answer.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Are you going to answer the question about Peter and Paul? I know you're under attack from all sides here but it's a bit crucial, don't you think?
quote:.... and I, of course, am neither.
I'm a Salvationist Wesleyan, you're an Anglican Calvinist.
quote:Let's hope there are some of the elect there or else you'll be wasting your time - pearls before unelected swine, and all that.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I've got a funeral to preach the gospel at. Later!
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
) was part of the predestined few, why has God only elected to save 7% of the British population?![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:You misunderstand me; my point is that God makes us able to love him by circumcising our hearts. We are the subjects of heart circumcision not the exectutors of it.
m.t-tomb ... for you simply to shout "circumcise your heart" at JS as if that answers his arguments astonishes me.
quote:That won't do.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Regarding the second quote from 2 Peter, please go the front of each of Peter's Epsitles and read who they're addressed to: I think you'll find that they're addressed to 'the elect' (1 Peter 1.1) and those 'who have recieved a faith' (2 Peter 1.1). Peter is addressing the elect: of course God wants them all to be saved.
As for the Timothy verse. I'll get back to you. I've got a funeral to preach the gospel at. Later!
quote:In fact, it reads
'He is patient with you, not wanting any of you to perish, but all of you, the elect to come to repentance
quote:I don't think it does. Being predestined to being conformed to the image of Jesus is based on God's foreknowledge of us and it is what we as followers of Jesus want. However we don't want all of what that means yet but as we both work out our salvation and God works in us it becomes more and more what we want.
Isn't predestined to be conformed saying that we have no free will?
quote:Apologies for being obscure, I was referring to 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Sorry. Pop up a link to it and I'll try to answer.
quote:Not "makes us love him" but "makes us able to love him."
You misunderstand me; my point is that God makes us able to love him by circumcising our hearts.
quote:Well, no, that doesn't follow. I believe that simply because she is born and is capable of suffering, a child deserves, in the common use of the word, to be fed, changed, protected from danger, and comforted when in distress. Are you saying God disagrees?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If that's the case then they don't deserve salvation either
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:So your saying that our sinfullness is not our own fault, instead it is God's fault, completely. Utterly. Yet WE are so blame-worthy that God is justified in behaving in a way towards us, as falen humans, that everythin we know about either justice or love is ostensibly trampled on by your God.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Father Gregory:quote:You misunderstand me; my point is that God makes us able to love him by circumcising our hearts. We are the subjects of heart circumcision not the exectutors of it.
m.t-tomb ... for you simply to shout "circumcise your heart" at JS as if that answers his arguments astonishes me.
quote:Yes, able to love. You can't resist being given the ability (irresistible grace) but you can resist using it.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Apologies for being obscure, I was referring to 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Sorry. Pop up a link to it and I'll try to answer.
Interesting way you phrase this:
quote:Not "makes us love him" but "makes us able to love him."
You misunderstand me; my point is that God makes us able to love him by circumcising our hearts.
quote:No. Because Paul in Romans 8.30 says:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So you can be predestined to have the ability to respond but not predestined to use it?
Wouldn't it then be possible that all are predestined to have the ability to respond and those that are not saved have resisted using it?
quote:A person may resist but they will not win.
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Dis Lazarus choose to come back to life before he came out of the tomb? Did jesus need his cooperation? Was his resusitation a joint effort? No. Jesus gave the imperative: Lazarus was raised; he didn't rise of his own free will. He responded once life had been imparted.
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Didn't Christ Himself choose and call Judas?
quote:Do dead people cooperate? Do dead people need to exercise their will to come to life? Or are they merely the subjects of divine grace?
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
quote:It says not wanting anyone to perish... not any race.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Regarding 1 Timothy 2.4:
...I think that it means that salvation isn't restricted to Israel but extends to all ethnic groups (i.e. God elects from amongst all people, not just Israel).
quote:Not wanting is not wanting - not absence of delight.
Also posted by m.t-tomb:
It might be a reference to the fact that God takes no delight in his wrath.
quote:No, I'm sorry. Your right. It is my interpretation of your position rather than your position per se.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Thank God it's not my position then!
quote:Above you started to hint that predestination might be a matter of grace-granted ability - but that you'd still need to be willing to use that ability.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Do dead people cooperate? Do dead people need to exercise their will to come to life? Or are they merely the subjects of divine grace?
quote:Was Lazarus lying there waiting for an resistable invitation to came back to life? No. He was dead. He contributed nothing.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Yes such dead people DO cooperate! Jesus loved St. Lazarus for a reason and the miracle was related to that. He didn't go around doing non causal party tricks simply to impress.
quote:No. Lazarus could have refused to come out. That's when his response of free will would have become possible.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Above you started to hint that predestination might be a matter of grace-granted ability - but that you'd still need to be willing to use that ability.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Do dead people cooperate? Do dead people need to exercise their will to come to life? Or are they merely the subjects of divine grace?
Doesn't that view contradict this one?
quote:I was; you understood me correctly. I then tried to extend the analogy to accomodate free will. Lazarus had no free will until he was alive; I say that it is the same with regeneration. Dead people don't cooperate; they just lie there, dead.
I thought you were applying those verses to show that just as the dead have no ability to cooperate in their raising, we have no ability to cooperate in our salvation.
quote:Yes, hidden by God.
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
If you don't like the fact that Paul says that God wants all men to be saved because it indicates that God doesn't always get his own way what do you make of the passages below:
Luke 7:30 "The Pharisees had rejected God's purpose for themselves because they had not been baptised by John".
Luke 19:41 "Jesus began to cry and said "I wish that even today you would find the way of peace but now its too late and peace is hidden from you.""
quote:In which case, I'm back to asking how that a) fits with your previous position about predestined ability but not response and b) those pesky verses in Timothy and Peter (which really do say anyone - not any race or any elect)...
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I was; you understood me correctly. I then tried to extend the analogy to accomodate free will. Lazarus had no free will until he was alive; I say that it is the same with regeneration. Dead people don't cooperate; they just lie there, dead.
quote:Which makes Jesus' wish it weren't hidden rather difficult to understand.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yes, hidden by God.
quote:You have not answered my point on this in relation to St. Lazarus.
Dead people don't cooperate; they just lie there, dead.
quote:Here is the heart of your problem. Deciding that the scriptures cannot mean what goes against your theology.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Regarding 1 Timothy 2.4:
It cannot mean that God sovereignly wills every single human being to be saved (i.e. that God saves everyone).
quote:So does God want us to have free will then? More than he wants us to be saved?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Here is the heart of your problem. Deciding that the scriptures cannot mean what goes against your theology.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Regarding 1 Timothy 2.4:
It cannot mean that God sovereignly wills every single human being to be saved (i.e. that God saves everyone).
I think it means what it says. God WANTS everybody to be saved. Everybody. Just like it says. God doesn't force people to be saved, however, and that means that some might not be. God is not WILLING that any should perish. If he had his druthers, nobody would perish. But he doesn't have his druthers, because we are able to reject his salvation.
quote:In other words - God chooses people of God's own soveriegn will. The people God chooses are everybody.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Here is the heart of your problem. Deciding that the scriptures cannot mean what goes against your theology.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Regarding 1 Timothy 2.4:
It cannot mean that God sovereignly wills every single human being to be saved (i.e. that God saves everyone).
I think it means what it says. God WANTS everybody to be saved. Everybody. Just like it says. God doesn't force people to be saved, however, and that means that some might not be. God is not WILLING that any should perish. If he had his druthers, nobody would perish. But he doesn't have his druthers, because we are able to reject his salvation.
quote:God does not want automatons. We are saved by grace alone but we have to have faith, in other words we have to believe in Jesus, which involves a free choice. You can't argue for pure free will or pure predestination based on Scripture, because Scripture supports elements of both.
originally posted by Mousethief
I think it means what it says. God WANTS everybody to be saved. Everybody. Just like it says. God doesn't force people to be saved, however, and that means that some might not be. God is not WILLING that any should perish. If he had his druthers, nobody would perish. But he doesn't have his druthers, because we are able to reject his salvation.
quote:You could put it that way. God created us to be free agents that could choose to love Him. If he wanted automatons that automatically loved him, he could have made those, but "love" of that sort is rather cheap. God could force us to be saved, but that would require changing who we are, from free agents, to puppets. God doesn't want the "love" of puppets. There would have been no need to create a world of danger and death if all God wanted was puppet love. But in order to have freely chosen love, we need a world in which we are free to make choices, even choices that have bad consequences. If we are not free to not choose God, then we are not free to choose God.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So does God want us to have free will then? More than he wants us to be saved?
quote:(Egad! centurionism is catching!)
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I really think we need to factor in the EMOTIONAL investment some folks have in Calvinism. This cannot be dealt with simply at the discursive level.
quote:He seems to have wanted Adam and Eve to have free will more than he wanted them not to eat the apple.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So does God want us to have free will then? More than he wants us to be saved?
quote:It's a pretty fair summary of mine, Papio.
Originally posted by Papio:
Is that your position, Mousethief?
quote:This is probably a fairly blind question.... but what is the emotional investment? I can understand the emotional investment in a valid sacrament... in believing one is saved... in the role of women in the church... but Calvinism seems so abstract to start with, and to make almost no practical impact on the way one lives or worships... what am I missing?
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I really think we need to factor in the EMOTIONAL investment some folks have in Calvinism. This cannot be dealt with simply at the discursive level.
quote:I think that, were I forced to choose, I would have to side you and Mousethief as well.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:It's a pretty fair summary of mine, Papio.
Originally posted by Papio:
Is that your position, Mousethief?
quote:But this is just Bulverism. All we can do here is argue the point.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What I mean is that ATTACHMENT to Calvinism (I share the repulsion) is not primarily an intellectual thing ... that is worked out afterwards. It is the sense of being snatched as a brand out of the burning that keeps most Calvinists Calvinist.
quote:The Lazarus's resuscitation/regeneration analogy was designed to clarify Paul's use of the death/sin analogy on Ephesians 2.1-5. The point I wanted to make was that free will is a fruit of regeneration not a precursor to regeneration. So, in Lazarus's case, his abilty to respond to the call of Christ to come forth was a fruit of his resuscitation not a precursor to it. So in terms of 'predestined ability' but not response I'll try to explain.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:In which case, I'm back to asking how that a) fits with your previous position about predestined ability but not response.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I was; you understood me correctly. I then tried to extend the analogy to accomodate free will. Lazarus had no free will until he was alive; I say that it is the same with regeneration. Dead people don't cooperate; they just lie there, dead.
quote:Not for me! I discovered Calvinism fairly recently; it is answering many theological questions but throwing up yet more conundrums as well. I do not claim to understand the nuances (perhaps not even the basics of TULIP) but I do find that it makes a great deal of sense. Basically, this conversation would be more fruitful if we could have a debate as to whether regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. I think that if we could establish our own points of view concerning regeneration then the rest could logically follow on from there.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Mousethief and mdijon
What I mean is that ATTACHMENT to Calvinism (I share the repulsion) is not primarily an intellectual thing ... that is worked out afterwards. It is the sense of being snatched as a brand out of the burning that keeps most Calvinists Calvinist.
quote:Unlike you, I cannot speak for "most Calvinist", just the ones I know: They tend to remain Calvinist because they think it best explains the gospel.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... It is the sense of being snatched as a brand out of the burning that keeps most Calvinists Calvinist.
quote:In my view, it's worse than that.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
A God that wants all of his free children saved but allows them to reject him seems a far more worthy object of worship than a God who makes nothing but puppets, and then torments some of them for eternity for a choice that He, and not they, made.
quote:Fair enough. It also has a certain logical coherence that, in my opinion, many other soteriological views do not have.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Unlike you, I cannot speak for "most Calvinist", just the ones I know: They tend to remain Calvinist because they think it best explains the gospel.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... It is the sense of being snatched as a brand out of the burning that keeps most Calvinists Calvinist.
quote:That's the point. It is the tidiness of the lawyer's mind with a bit of fire and brimstone thrown in for moral earnestness. It's a kind of Protestant scholasticism.
I can understand the continuing appeal of Calvinism to people who have a low tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
quote:You have exctly the same problem with your Arminian or Pelagian view. Notoriously, what about the people born before Jesus?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There's a point. If the churches are emptying, if there are fewer and fewer conversions, what does that say about God's election? Has he stopped electing young people, going for older ones instead?
quote:Augustine was pretty clear that the visible church is not the same as the invisible one.
why has God only elected to save 7% of the British population?
quote:Hebrews 11
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You have exctly the same problem with your Arminian or Pelagian view. Notoriously, what about the people born before Jesus?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There's a point. If the churches are emptying, if there are fewer and fewer conversions, what does that say about God's election? Has he stopped electing young people, going for older ones instead?
If you believe that anybody at all is damned then you have the same moral problem as the Augustinians do. If people's chance of salvation or damnation depends in any way on their circumstances you have the same theological problem that they do. The almighty creator God could have placed them in a different situation.
The horrible God you are accusing Calvin of worshipping is the same horrible God Wesley or the Evcumenical Patriarch also worship - its just that the calvinist way of thinking makes some of the very real problems we all share clearer and more obvious.
quote:Augustine was pretty clear that the visible church is not the same as the invisible one.
why has God only elected to save 7% of the British population?
quote:If you believed that you would be a Pelagian, not an Arminian. What you describe as Wesleyan view is pretty much the Arminian one - which remember originated as part of the Reformed tradition, as an argument within the Augustinian school.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am not a total Arminian in that I do not believe that I can simply decide to be a Christian and then use the capacity of my own faith to accept the atonement.
quote:An Augustinain notion! The argument between the hyper-Calvinists and the Arminians was about who the previenient grace is given to.
I believe therefore in prevenient grace which is where grace is given in order to believe. It is a work of God that precludes any effort or merit on our part.
quote:Isn't a God who is less then fully soveriegn preferable in literally every single way worth mentioning to a God who is compromised in both love and justice, which I contend that the Calvinian God is?
Originally posted by ken:
This has the problem that it seems to deny God's sovreignty because his attempts to save are failures if any are damned. So both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists can say to them that they don't really believe God is sovereign, because they allow human will to triumph over God's will.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I thought you were an agnostic.
Originally posted by Papio:
I think I will stick with Process Theology really.
quote:It wasn't. It does however mean that there is something more complex going on that God wanting everyone to be saved rather than just "it means what it says."
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Also I'm not sure how your question, clearly intended as a condemnation of my position, really is one -- if your position is that God doesn't want to save all people, but only a few. A God that wants all of his free children saved but allows them to reject him seems a far more worthy object of worship than a God who makes nothing but puppets, and then torments some of them for eternity for a choice that He, and not they, made.
quote:Well - I am not a strict agnostic any more. I am agnostic on a great many things, but I have decided to give Christianity one more go. as arrogant as that sounds.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:I thought you were an agnostic.
Originally posted by Papio:
I think I will stick with Process Theology really.
quote:Not arrogant, just confusing. At least it is to a Calvinist.
Originally posted by Papio:
...I have decided to give Christianity one more go. as arrogant as that sounds.
quote:What is the something different?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Calvinists are just saying that about something different.
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
...I have decided to give Christianity one more go. as arrogant as that sounds.
quote:No at all. It's just that irresistable grace got him in the end.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Not arrogant, just confusing. At least it is to a Calvinist.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for the baboon.
quote:I dunno how paranoid I should be at that remark. I guess (and hope) you just mean revert to being a grumpy heathen - which is fine
Originally posted by mdijon:
in which case I guess he'll revert to type shortly).
quote:m.t-tomb
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
John Spears, have you ever read Deuteronomy 30.6?quote:And now some questions: what does this verse say about man's ability to love God? Who makes that love possible? How is that love made possible? Who exercises that love? Who does the promise of that love extend to? What is the result of that love? Who benefits from the result?
6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
quote:Many mothers love their children almost unconditionally. Whatever their children do, some will always love them. Are they automatons?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
God created us to be free agents that could choose to love Him. If he wanted automatons that automatically loved him, he could have made those, but "love" of that sort is rather cheap.
quote:It rests on differentiating grace and the means of grace. God has appointed a variety of gracious means through which we can meet him, know him, work for and with him, perceive him, love etc. We (Calvinists) accept Ephesians 2.8-9 with total acceptance; however we are also very interested in knowing that grace to be powerfully at work in us and actively will for it to be so.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I meant whatever the opposite of the elect was... I was trying to fit it into a Calvinist universe (which I reject, by the way).
But you're welcome to all the votives available to me, BTW.
I do suspect, however, that I completely misunderstand Calvinism.
For instance, I suppose that belief in that kind of predestination would make one utterly fatalistic... which isn't something one commonly sees in Calvinists. Presumably there's a reason for that, that I just don't know/understand it.
quote:Now reverse that statement! If God lets people into heaven for simply believing in Him, He's a... what? What's the opposite of a monster? A fluffy bunny?
If He sends people to hell for simply not believing in Him, He is a monster.
quote:Faith come by hearing, surely? Regeneration by the Holy Spirit without the human will happens first. Conversion, which is an act of volition happens next, starting with repentance.
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
quote:Sounds painful, particilaption.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Calvinists derive their joy from particilaption in the means of grace that God has ordained
quote:I wrote God would be both arrogant and insecure. It doesn't logically follow that God would have to be the opposite of a monster for accepting people into heaven for simply believing in Him if He is a monster for sending people to hell for not believing in Him.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Skeptic said:quote:Now reverse that statement! If God lets people into heaven for simply believing in Him, He's a... what? What's the opposite of a monster? A fluffy bunny?
If He sends people to hell for simply not believing in Him, He is a monster.
quote:I'm not sure this is true. To be saved in Orthodox soteriology as I understand it is ultimately (and loosely) to come into the fullest possible union with God, and that union comes about through love.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Even you are saying that God wants something else more than us to be saved (our free choice to love him)
and if it starts to go pear-shaped, remember it's perfectly possible to be a grumpy Christian. I should know...
quote:Yes, one could easily forget that on a website like this one.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
remember it's perfectly possible to be a grumpy Christian. I should know...
quote:Why? Just because one outcome is favourable and one is not? As I've said before the real scandal in terms of cosmic justice is that anyone gets to heaven, not that only some have that honour. The only reason that some people think that particular redemption is scandalous is because (secretly) they're so darn sure that they're going there themselves. They just think that a bit of moral indignation against the God who elected them will assuage their existential guilt. It's the spiritual equivalent of chucking a bone to the lost from comfort of their salvific armchair.
Originally posted by Skeptic:
quote:I wrote God would be both arrogant and insecure. It doesn't logically follow that God would have to be the opposite of a monster for accepting people into heaven for simply believing in Him if He is a monster for sending people to hell for not believing in Him.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Skeptic said:quote:Now reverse that statement! If God lets people into heaven for simply believing in Him, He's a... what? What's the opposite of a monster? A fluffy bunny?
If He sends people to hell for simply not believing in Him, He is a monster.
quote:Why? I can't understand this compulsion to believe that normal people are somehow monstrous. If a person genuinely lives a life which seeks justice, compassion and all these things (and the example of Cornelius suffices to show that this is possible for a pagan), why is it a scandal that God should remit the penalty of what sins the person does have, given that they were born with them? I find that ethically strange, but then I do not consider self-hate to be virtuous.
As I've said before the real scandal in terms of cosmic justice is that anyone gets to heaven
quote:What a steaming pile of horse gonads.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The only reason that some people think that particular redemption is scandalous is because (secretly) they're so darn sure that they're going there themselves. They just think that a bit of moral indignation against the God who elected them will assuage their existential guilt. It's the spiritual equivalent of chucking a bone to the lost from comfort of their salvific armchair.
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Papio, welcome back
quote:Ah, speaking of armchairs, now you're an armchair psychoanalyst. You needn't try to psychoananalyze me again, either, because you're so wide of the mark with this one, I'm not going to be inclined to listen, and you'd just be wasting your breath. Can we cut with the Bulveristic bullshit and just get back to the theological issues?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The only reason that some people think that particular redemption is scandalous is because (secretly) they're so darn sure that they're going there themselves. They just think that a bit of moral indignation against the God who elected them will assuage their existential guilt. It's the spiritual equivalent of chucking a bone to the lost from comfort of their salvific armchair.
quote:Spot on .... and that's why Catholicism in the west has had such a long hard struggle against Calvinism. Sadly we now are enterring an age of "unreason" again in which God is pitted against human knowledge and the unreasonable dictates of a perfectly awful logic are oppressing us once more. Or maybe Calvinism is a busted flush and these are he death throes. A bit like militant Islam really. Who knows.
Are we getting a god who is so transcendent he is unreasonable?
quote:A burglar has three people tied up. He shoots one dead and spares the lives of the remaining two based on one professing a love for him and the last on a whim. Although the burglar has saved the lives of two people, he is neither a hero or a saint.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Why? Just because one outcome is favourable and one is not?
quote:It was Jesus himself who compared the salvation of the universe to "a thief in the night".
Originally posted by Skeptic:
A burglar has three people tied up.
quote:I see three similarities, not to my God but to what I understand to be Calvinism's:
Originally posted by ken:
Other than that, in what exact way do you think the relation between the eternal creator God and the created universe is similar to that between a burgular and their victims?
quote:It is my fault for not quoting more of the discussion. Here it is in a nutshell:
Originally posted by ken:
Other than that, in what exact way do you think the relation between the eternal creator God and the created universe is similar to that between a burgular and their victims?
quote:Sincere apologies to Papio and Mousethief for the above post. I thought it was clever at the time. My wife and I shared a bottle of wine last night and I banged this post off just before coming to bed. It wasn't clever and it wasn't fair to those who've contributed to the debate so far; even if I do disagree with some of you.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Ah, speaking of armchairs, now you're an armchair psychoanalyst. You needn't try to psychoananalyze me again, either, because you're so wide of the mark with this one, I'm not going to be inclined to listen, and you'd just be wasting your breath. Can we cut with the Bulveristic bullshit and just get back to the theological issues?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The only reason that some people think that particular redemption is scandalous is because (secretly) they're so darn sure that they're going there themselves. They just think that a bit of moral indignation against the God who elected them will assuage their existential guilt. It's the spiritual equivalent of chucking a bone to the lost from comfort of their salvific armchair.
quote:Oh Grey Face - these are weasel words (if you'll forgive me!)
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I'm not sure this is true. To be saved in Orthodox soteriology as I understand it is ultimately (and loosely) to come into the fullest possible union with God, and that union comes about through love.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Even you are saying that God wants something else more than us to be saved (our free choice to love him)
If love cannot be coerced then this basically means that our free choice to love him - and let's not forget his free choice to love us - is the beginning of salvation rather than something additional to it.
quote:Justice? What justice? We are created (according to the Calvinist worldview) in a state in which we can never, by our own efforts, be other than wretched sinners; and it is just that we should be condemned for this?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
As I've said before the real scandal in terms of cosmic justice is that anyone gets to heaven, not that only some have that honour.
quote:This is essentially the argument of evil and suffering in the world, isn't it? Does that demonstrate that there is something God wants more than ending evil?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ergo, there is something (our free love, or rather the free love of some people, not everyone) that God wants more than all people to be saved.
quote:But you're talking as if God creates each and every human being ex nihilo. If God did that then he really would be a monster! But he doesn't: I hold to a generationist view of human procreation, which essentially means that God is not involved in the bestowal of a spirit (which would have to be a sinful spirit) at the point of every individual conception. I believe that the imperative to procreate came with the power and ability to do so without God having to 'get in on the act' in the sense of bestowing an immortal soul from heaven.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:Justice? What justice? We are created (according to the Calvinist worldview) in a state in which we can never, by our own efforts, be other than wretched sinners; and it is just that we should be condemned for this?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
As I've said before the real scandal in terms of cosmic justice is that anyone gets to heaven, not that only some have that honour.
It seems to me that your use of the word `just', like your use of the word `deserves' earlier, has little in common with the day-to-day usage of these words.
There may be justice other than human justice; but it's got to have some analogy with human justice for the word to be an appropriate one, surely.
The Calvinist would do better, in my view, to avoid words like justice altogether. A better model of god would be like Death in the Discworld books: ``There is no justice. There is only me''.
quote:Are you really saying that if God created ex nihilo and predestined damnation he'd be a monster, but if he simply set the forces in motion that resulted in the creation, and predestined damnation, he's not such a monster?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
But you're talking as if God creates each and every human being ex nihilo. If God did that then he really would be a monster!
quote:Yes, for people to be people. Because they can be people, in which case some might not be saved, or they can be puppets, and God can save all. God for some reason chose to create people rather than puppets. This he wanted more than a race of fully saved puppets. Perhaps because forced love isn't really love at all. One's reflection in the mirror looks at one whenever one looks at it, but it isn't free. Narcissus loved his reflection; God for some reason seems to prefer to love real people.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ergo, there is something (our free love, or rather the free love of some people, not everyone) that God wants more than all people to be saved.
population of this thread, welcome back quote:Fine. So God pre-ordains that some will be in Hell - creating them knowing many (most?) will not choose him. The only difference between this view and Calvinism is that God is not as specific about who will be there.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Yes, for people to be people. Because they can be people, in which case some might not be saved, or they can be puppets, and God can save all. God for some reason chose to create people rather than puppets. This he wanted more than a race of fully saved puppets. Perhaps because forced love isn't really love at all. One's reflection in the mirror looks at one whenever one looks at it, but it isn't free. Narcissus loved his reflection; God for some reason seems to prefer to love real people.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ergo, there is something (our free love, or rather the free love of some people, not everyone) that God wants more than all people to be saved.
quote:In some sense I simply must accept that in some sense the sin of Adam is deemed (certainly by Paul) to have brought condemnation (which I take to mean a negative status leading damnation if God does not intervene) to all 'in Adam'. I'd say that Adam's direct disobedience has in some sense been imputed to all of humanity and that humanity is therefore bent in upon itself in a way that makes all people inherently hostile to God.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Are you really saying that if God created ex nihilo and predestined damnation he'd be a monster, but if he simply set the forces in motion that resulted in the creation, and predestined damnation, he's not such a monster?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
But you're talking as if God creates each and every human being ex nihilo. If God did that then he really would be a monster!
quote:We are backtracking. We need to start at the beginning. Calvinism is a systematic theology. You need to start at the start to understand it!
But before we go round the loop again, perhaps we could backtrack and you could try and explain why what we aren't getting about Cavlinism.
quote:OK, I can see where you're coming from now. But even if you hold to this traducian view, you've still got to account, as mdijon says, for the fact that this all happened on God's watch, so to speak. It didn't (presumably) have to be that way.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
This is the only way that I can see Romans 5 (and hence the doctirne of imputed sinfulness via Adam) having any coherent meaning.
quote:OK, but God does preordain his gracious act by which we are given the ability to make good decisions. Some might describe it as the miraculous restoration of free-will coupled with illunination whereby the beauty of Christ is perceived by the power of the Spirit. The decision for Christ is preordained not because the person is coerced but because Christ is so beautiful. God knows that any person with genuine free-will will choose Christ because Christ is irresistibly beautiful, not because they are forced to decide.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
God does not pre-ordain our decisions. Period.
quote:But you say not all will be saved. Hence God must have created some people who don't genuinely have free-will. Therefore they are condemned to eternal torment for something they could not not do. Which is evil.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
God knows that any person with genuine free-will will choose Christ because Christ is irresistibly beautiful, not because they are forced to decide.
quote:So, I'm being punished for something someone else did? How is that just? If I'm being punished by God (assuming I'm not elect for one moment) for being born into a state of sin, a state as it were of spiritual disability, how is that different from a bunch of yobs giving someone a good kicking for being born physically or mentally handicapped?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
[In some sense I simply must accept that in some sense the sin of Adam is deemed (certainly by Paul) to have brought condemnation (which I take to mean a negative status leading damnation if God does not intervene) to all 'in Adam'. I'd say that Adam's direct disobedience has in some sense been imputed to all of humanity and that humanity is therefore bent in upon itself in a way that makes all people inherently hostile to God.
quote:Don't all these start with Augustine's Original Sin idea? What do Calvinists say about this and how is it different from Anglicans or Baptists and so on?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:In some sense I simply must accept that in some sense the sin of Adam is deemed (certainly by Paul) to have brought condemnation (which I take to mean a negative status leading damnation if God does not intervene) to all 'in Adam'. I'd say that Adam's direct disobedience has in some sense been imputed to all of humanity and that humanity is therefore bent in upon itself in a way that makes all people inherently hostile to God.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Are you really saying that if God created ex nihilo and predestined damnation he'd be a monster, but if he simply set the forces in motion that resulted in the creation, and predestined damnation, he's not such a monster?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
But you're talking as if God creates each and every human being ex nihilo. If God did that then he really would be a monster!
quote:We are backtracking. We need to start at the beginning. Calvinism is a systematic theology. You need to start at the start to understand it!
But before we go round the loop again, perhaps we could backtrack and you could try and explain why what we aren't getting about Cavlinism.
quote:The logic is that God allows (nay, pre-ordains) people to kill his son because he is achieving another sovereign purpose through it. Calvinism is saying the same thing about people's rejection of God overall.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
As I have said, Calvinists seem to worry more about God's "strength" than God does. Who stooped to take on the form of a servant, even unto death. So you think God allowed men to kill him, but won't allow men to reject his love? The "logic" of this escapes me.
quote:Ok. The point I was trying to make, however ineptly, is that God creates people knowing some/many will go to Hell. He does this because he wants people to love him by choice. This seems to me to be a rather risky exercise in self esteem for a God who is love. On the free will view, He does pre-ordain (just in the way he has set up the world) that some will be in hell: just not who that will be.
ETA: And for the last time, God in my understanding does NOT pre-ordain anybody to be in Hell. Because God does not pre-ordain our decisions. Period.
quote:I'll admit I'd not thought of this parrallel before. Although a difference is that it is clear what the sovereign purpose is... the Son accepts it willingly... and it brings salvation to those who killed him.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The logic is that God allows (nay, pre-ordains) people to kill his son because he is achieving another sovereign purpose through it. Calvinism is saying the same thing about people's rejection of God overall.
quote:That's not free will if God ordains some to be in hell.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
On the free will view, He does pre-ordain (just in the way he has set up the world) that some will be in hell: just not who that will be.
In short, I don't think, on reflection, that the free will argument makes God out to be any more loving than the Calvinist POV. It also has the added disadvantage of making him a cosmic gambler with people's souls.
quote:No problem.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Thank you. My apology was sincere.
quote:I haven't a clue what you are going on about Mousethief. In a previous post I merely asked for an appreciation of the emotional investment some Calvinists have in their doctrine in the sense that they consider themselves to be brands snatched from the burning ... in other words, hell bound but rescued by God alone. How is that insight into how others believe unacceptable to you? I wasn't subscribing to the doctrine or experience myself of course. It's called empathic understanding based on Calvinists I actually know, (but not all Calvinists of course). I really cannot understand how I could have possibly offended you by this. However, if you explain and I have, I will apologise.
I would be happy to leave aside the Bulverism (Father G, this means you too)
quote:Matt - this is the very problem that Calvinists have with Arminian theology - it sneaks in works - ie you are rewarded for making the better moral choice - through the back door.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that with the 'free-will' God, human beings do the choosing and can thus be said to have at least some responsibility for which they can be punished, whereas with the Calvinist view, it is God and God alone who does the choosing and therefore He not they is morally culpable for the consequences.
quote:Apologies if this is superfluous, but Bulverism is defined by CS Lewis, who coined it, as a form of ad hominen where one "Assume[s] your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error". In attempting to analyse why Calvinists should believe as they do rather than the merits of what they believe, you are arguably employing this tactic. The trouble is, it can be used equally by both sides, and does nothing to advance the debate.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I haven't a clue what you are going on about Mousethief.
quote:I think that's right. As I've said before, `making a better moral choice', or `not rejecting salvation', or `turning to Christ', or whatever, if they are done of our own free will are works. Or they are, at least, a work. They are. You can't fudge this issue.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Matt - this is the very problem that Calvinists have with Arminian theology - it sneaks in works - ie you are rewarded for making the better moral choice - through the back door.
quote:Of course I forgive you. 489 to go
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Oh Grey Face - these are weasel words (if you'll forgive me!)
quote:Not true, nor of any soteriology other than strict Calvinism. It's possible to hope and pray that all will be saved, it's wrong to assume that all will.
pointing out that even in the Orthodox soteriology, all men are not saved.
quote:I think you've missed my point, and it hinges on what it means to be saved. LutheranChik has a laudable habit of asking the awkward question, "Yes, but saved for what?"
I also gather the Orthodox believe in the omnipotence of God. Ergo, there is something (our free love, or rather the free love of some people, not everyone) that God wants more than all people to be saved.
quote:I have to admit to that, I think.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
My experience is that most Christians (maybe present company excepted, but maybe not) have some degree of Pelagian thinking, and don't beat themselves up about it too much.
quote:Exactly. I think that's what offering God the alternative attributes of evil or weak in response to suffering in the world is about.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's like arguing that if God cannot make a square with three sides, he's not omnipotent. Do you see what I'm getting at?
quote:This is absolute bullshit. If I say .... "recognise the depth of feeling behind this based on religious experience" .... how is that criticism? I was SUPPORTING (some) Calvinists by empathy, not criticising them. Too many assumptions going on here about what others think I "really" mean rather than simply dealing straightforwardly with what I said.
In attempting to analyse why Calvinists should believe as they do rather than the merits of what they believe, you are arguably employing this tactic.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:to which mdijon added:
It seems to me, and has always seemed to me, that there are only three logical ways forward if that's the case:
1. Reject `works' fully, and embrace 5-point Calvinism and all that it entails
2. Accept that Pelagius had it right all along, at least in some degree -- works, or at least human cooperation, in some form, is a prerequisite to human salvation
3. Embrace full-blown universalism
quote:When faced with these sort of multiple-choice questions, my immediate reaction is to choose (4) - i.e. none of the above.
Synergy is the other option - although you may view that as a variant of (2)
quote:As I've said, God doesn't create people ex nihilo: he has devolved the act of pro-creation to humanity. A humanity that fell by directly disobeying a command. In this sense humanity creates sinful humanity. The fallen spirit of Adam is passed to each and every human being by generation. In this way we can all be descibed as having inherited Adam's sinful nature. This is the traducian or generationist position. God does not create the spirits of 'sinners' ex nihilo: they are not born children of God (see St John's epistles), they must be adopted by him.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:But you say not all will be saved. Hence God must have created some people who don't genuinely have free-will.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
God knows that any person with genuine free-will will choose Christ because Christ is irresistibly beautiful, not because they are forced to decide.
quote:The way I see it is this. Every human being, by virtue of inheriting their soul/spirit from Adam, is fallen and under the curse that God placed upon Adam. They are very far gone from original righteousness. God - by an act of sheer grace - elects people from this mass of lost humanity unconditionally. God doesn't adopt the best ones or nicest ones or even the one's that apply for adoption; no, he adopts without prejudice. The problem with this view however is that you'll say God is immoral for not adopting everyone. Calvinists on the other hand think that God allows his love to compromise his justice by adopting even one undeserving sinner. The way God vindicates his desire to be merciful to objects of wrath is to appoint himself as their substitute.
Therefore they are condemned to eternal torment for something they could not not do. Which is evil.
quote:I think that is an important clarification, since
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
For many of us, (and I include myself), the logical working out of that in doctrine is subsequent to the experience.
quote:could easily be read as psychoanalysis for Calvinists without that. In fact, I see you intended it as psychoanalysis for all of us... or many of us, anyway.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Mousethief and mdijon
What I mean is that ATTACHMENT to Calvinism (I share the repulsion) is not primarily an intellectual thing ... that is worked out afterwards. It is the sense of being snatched as a brand out of the burning that keeps most Calvinists Calvinist.
quote:I really don't know. I'll ask Him one day. I suspect it's got something to do with the relationship between regeneration (monergist perspective) and conversion (synergy). I think that freewill kicks in after regeneration. This is the position of Calvinist and Arminians alike. Calvinist say that post regeneration saving grace is effectual because Christ's beauty is irresistible to the truly free, whereas Arminians say that regeneration restores free will so that subject then decides for or indeed against Christ. What Calvinists object to in this view is the suggestion that a person with perfect free will would ever choose to reject Christ. the Reformed view is that Christ is so very lovely that anyone with free will will choose him.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So why doesn't He adopt everyone?
quote:This isn't an objection to Calvinism per se I think it's an objection to Augustinianism and therefore catholic Christianity (Roman, Reformed and Arminian) in general. Perhaps Orthodoxy really has got it right.
And what about my point of the (in)justice of being punished or held accountable for something someone else (Adam) has done?
But I think that Romans 5 has a lot to answer for on this count. I'll have to clarify my thoughts before I answer.quote:No. But I think God let him, which in essence *might* be the same thing.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
According to Calvinism, did Adam sin because God made him do so? Serious question.
quote:In terms of my approach to evangelism it gives me great confidence. This is because I can believe that God is acting in a person bringing them to himself; all I have to do is participate in what God is doing. It also gives me an immense sense of privilege that God would choose my faltering and inadequate attempts to represent him to teh world as the means by which he gives grace to the lost and the context in which he chooses to regenerate the lost.
Originally posted by mdijon:
mt-t, I'd be interested in knowing what practical difference (if any) this makes to your approach to Christianity... or your worship. Does it have any direct consequences?
quote:Yes. It puts the will of God in Christ absolutely at the centre of everything. It allows me to see God as totally sovereign, omnipotent, wise, loving and imminent in all things and through all things. It allows me to behold the magnificence of God's grace at work in a couple sat in my lounge asking for their child to baptised. It allows me to see the grace of God behind incredible joy and crushing disappointment. It allows me to worship God for who He is even when I feel that I am at my wits end.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Does being a Calvinist inform/change the way you live? Worship? Relate to other Christians?
quote:I find it very strange indeed that a theological system could start off by defending and proclaiming the sovereignty of God, and then end up up claiming there is a significant part of life that God is not sovereign over, not involved with, and therefore not responsible for. To be honest, it smacks of Deism to me, and I'm very surprised to find it embedded within Calvinist thought.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
As I've said, God doesn't create people ex nihilo: he has devolved the act of pro-creation to humanity. A humanity that fell by directly disobeying a command. In this sense humanity creates sinful humanity.
quote:I am reminded of the criticism made of evangelical theology in general (reported by John Stott, no less) that our theology of redemption is thorough and exemplary, but our theology of creation is rather deficient...
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
It allows me to see God as totally sovereign, omnipotent, wise, loving and imminent in all things and through all things.
quote:Mousethief: apologies if I've put words into your mouth which you didn't intend.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear sanityman
quote:This is absolute bullshit. If I say .... "recognise the depth of feeling behind this based on religious experience" .... how is that criticism? I was SUPPORTING (some) Calvinists by empathy, not criticising them. Too many assumptions going on here about what others think I "really" mean rather than simply dealing straightforwardly with what I said.
In attempting to analyse why Calvinists should believe as they do rather than the merits of what they believe, you are arguably employing this tactic.
If this is Mousethief's take on this as well, then all offers of apology are hereby withdrawn. I am the offended one in that case.
quote:We all have emotional investments in our own positions, and it can be a help in understanding the other's position if we know where they're coming from (if I understand you correctly).
I merely asked for an appreciation of the emotional investment some Calvinists have in their doctrine...
quote:I have to say, while I appreciate the point you are making, I think someone having been asked to share their Christian experience, and doing so earnestly and from the heart, deserves more respect than this no matter how much you disagree with what has been said.
Originally posted by John Spears:
Blah blah blah.
I know there are rules against being rude on these boards but it is this sort of incredibly grating religious talk from all sorts of Christians that gets on my wick when the basic concept they are defending is completely immoral and devoid of love.
quote:Yes, because if someone believes it then they are elect. In fact the very fact that I'm having a conversation with them about Christ is fairly good evidence that God is in their life and his grace is upon them. There is no contradiction in telling a person that Jesus died for them and the Calvinist doctrine of election. Anyone who reponds to Christ has been led to him by the Father. There are simply no people who come to Christ for salvation that turn out to be un-elect.
Originally posted by John Spears:
"In terms of my approach to evangelism it gives me great confidence. This is because I can believe that God is acting in a person bringing them to himself; all I have to do is participate in what God is doing. It also gives me an immense sense of privilege that God would choose my faltering and inadequate attempts to represent him to teh world as the means by which he gives grace to the lost and the context in which he chooses to regenerate the lost."
Tell me brother, do you tell them that God loves them and wants to save them?
quote:I have never begun to understand Calvinism and I accept that I haven't really tried. But nothing I have read on this thread dispels the impression that for all their emphasis on the love and sovereignty of God, their starting point is really the inherent sinfulness of humanity. As if a human being was defined as being a flawed part of creation. Whereas I have always thought the essential truth is that we are created in God's image and likeness. That this image is flawed is incontrovertible, but essentially we are sons and daughters of God and one day, thanks to God's grace, we shall be revealed as such.
Originally posted by humblebum:
I am reminded of the criticism made of evangelical theology in general (reported by John Stott, no less) that our theology of redemption is thorough and exemplary, but our theology of creation is rather deficient...
quote:
I say more: the just man justices;
Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is -
Christ - for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To teh Father through the features of men's faces.
quote:I didn't say he wasn't involved with it in toto, I said that God does not create each individual human soul as each human being is conceived. I said that God breathed life into Adam and that this 'life' is psychosomatic and passed on generationally. The soul still comes from God, but not directly; it come via one's parents. Each human being still lives and moves and has its being in God. But each person was not created by God ex nihilo. In this respect all humanity really is related to each other and shares the fallen soul of Adam.
Originally posted by humblebum:
quote:I find it very strange indeed that a theological system could start off by defending and proclaiming the sovereignty of God, and then end up up claiming there is a significant part of life that God is not sovereign over, not involved with, and therefore not responsible for. To be honest, it smacks of Deism to me, and I'm very surprised to find it embedded within Calvinist thought.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
As I've said, God doesn't create people ex nihilo: he has devolved the act of pro-creation to humanity. A humanity that fell by directly disobeying a command. In this sense humanity creates sinful humanity.
MTT, how do you square this position with your later comments?:
quote:But that's not what Calvinism teaches, is it? Desire can't be part of unconditional election.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The idea that a person might want to be saved but in fact not be one of the 'chosen' is anathema to me and to Calvinism. The unelect never want to be saved and have never wanted to be saved. The possibility of Christ has never for one moment even crossed their minds.
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't understand (agree with) this bit: "Arminians say that regeneration restores free will so that subject then decides for or indeed against Christ."
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I think that freewill kicks in after regeneration. This is the position of Calvinist and Arminians alike. Calvinist say that post regeneration saving grace is effectual because Christ's beauty is irresistible to the truly free, whereas Arminians say that regeneration restores free will so that subject then decides for or indeed against Christ. What Calvinists object to in this view is the suggestion that a person with perfect free will would ever choose to reject Christ. the Reformed view is that Christ is so very lovely that anyone with free will will choose him.
quote:
"Let us consider two people, Bill and Ben. All Christians (apart from strict Calvinists) would be happy to say that Jesus died in order to save both of them. If, however, Bill believes and is saved but Ben does not and is lost, can Jesus really be said to be the Saviour of either of them? He certainly isn't Ben's Saviour in any meaningful sense of the word for Ben is not saved! And since Jesus died for both of them - but it has not made any difference to Ben - Bill is saved because of what he did himself, not because of what Jesus did for him. It may be true that Bill couldn't have been saved unless Jesus had also - or even, first - died for him but it is his own action that has been the deciding factor, the bottom line. "
quote:Aghgh! In cyberspace no one can hear me scream..
Originally posted by angloid:
I have never begun to understand Calvinism and I accept that I haven't really tried. But nothing I have read on this thread dispels the impression that for all their emphasis on the love and sovereignty of God, their starting point is really the inherent sinfulness of humanity. As if a human being was defined as being a flawed part of creation. Whereas I have always thought the essential truth is that we are created in God's image and likeness. That this image is flawed is incontrovertible, but essentially we are sons and daughters of God and one day, thanks to God's grace, we shall be revealed as such.
quote:It is easy to forget one particular strand of Calvinism that does not teach or believe this at all.
Originally posted by John Spears:
God made us as sinners and then blames us for it. There is no other way around it - that is what Calvinism teaches.
quote:Why is that so horrid?
Originally posted by John Spears:
From Ravi Holys site :
quote:
<snip>it is his own action that has been the deciding factor, the bottom line. "
quote:That may be your view but I'm not sure it's mainstream calvinism, which stresses that the non-elect can have strivings after God and even show practially all of the signs of grace. Read Edward's "The Religious Affections" or Whitefield's sermon on "The Almost Christian". Calvinists are fond of quoting the scripture concerning Esau that he "could not find repentance though he sought it earnestly and with tears" to show that only God can grant it.
The idea that a person might want to be saved but in fact not be one of the 'chosen' is anathema to me and to Calvinism. The unelect never want to be saved and have never wanted to be saved. The possibility of Christ has never for one moment even crossed their minds.
quote:I don't think this will do. Christians from all walks - evangelical, liberal, RC, Calvinist and anti-Calvinist seem overly quick to justify obnoxious remarks by likening themselves to Christ.
Originally posted by John Spears:
Let me ask you, do you think Jesus minced his words with people who set themselves up as theological authorities?
quote:I think that is an inadequate characterisation of what mtt is trying to explain to us. I also think a struggle to have a civil chat with someone whose viewpoint seems to dissonant might be worthwhile.
Originally posted by John Spears:
I really struggle to have a civil chat with someone about how God hates everyone except for his special little clan.
quote:Dear brother, you are not Jesus. For one thing, I think he'd be able to use UBB code.
Originally posted by John Spears:
Let me ask you, do you think Jesus minced his words with people who set themselves up as theological authorities?
quote:Well this Anglican doesn't. If that makes me a heretic. so be it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Aghgh! In cyberspace no one can hear me scream..
Originally posted by angloid:
I have never begun to understand Calvinism and I accept that I haven't really tried. But nothing I have read on this thread dispels the impression that for all their emphasis on the love and sovereignty of God, their starting point is really the inherent sinfulness of humanity. As if a human being was defined as being a flawed part of creation. Whereas I have always thought the essential truth is that we are created in God's image and likeness. That this image is flawed is incontrovertible, but essentially we are sons and daughters of God and one day, thanks to God's grace, we shall be revealed as such.
But, the Anglicans believe in Augustine's doctrine which is exactly the inherent sinfulness of mankind.
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
quote:Well this Anglican doesn't. If that makes me a heretic. so be it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Aghgh! In cyberspace no one can hear me scream..
Originally posted by angloid:
I have never begun to understand Calvinism and I accept that I haven't really tried. But nothing I have read on this thread dispels the impression that for all their emphasis on the love and sovereignty of God, their starting point is really the inherent sinfulness of humanity. As if a human being was defined as being a flawed part of creation. Whereas I have always thought the essential truth is that we are created in God's image and likeness. That this image is flawed is incontrovertible, but essentially we are sons and daughters of God and one day, thanks to God's grace, we shall be revealed as such.
But, the Anglicans believe in Augustine's doctrine which is exactly the inherent sinfulness of mankind.
quote:It differs not at all. Because most Baptists worldwide probably are Calvinists (in the wide sense). And many Anglicans are too. Maybe even most. And even those that aren't are almost all subscribers to other flavours of Christianity tradition (such as Arminianism) that also acknowledge the idea of Original Sin.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Don't all these start with Augustine's Original Sin idea? What do Calvinists say about this and how is it different from Anglicans or Baptists and so on?
quote:No but it can a fruit of it. In fact it is a fruit of it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:But that's not what Calvinism teaches, is it? Desire can't be part of unconditional election.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The idea that a person might want to be saved but in fact not be one of the 'chosen' is anathema to me and to Calvinism. The unelect never want to be saved and have never wanted to be saved. The possibility of Christ has never for one moment even crossed their minds.
Myrrh
quote:No I don't. Peculiarly enough I'm reading the The Religious Affections at the moment and I haven't come across what you're saying yet. Where is it?
Originally posted by anteater:
m-t-tomb:
quote:That may be your view but I'm not sure it's mainstream calvinism, which stresses that the non-elect can have strivings after God and even show practially all of the signs of grace. Read Edward's "The Religious Affections" or Whitefield's sermon on "The Almost Christian". Calvinists are fond of quoting the scripture concerning Esau that he "could not find repentance though he sought it earnestly and with tears" to show that only God can grant it.
The idea that a person might want to be saved but in fact not be one of the 'chosen' is anathema to me and to Calvinism. The unelect never want to be saved and have never wanted to be saved. The possibility of Christ has never for one moment even crossed their minds.
It all go's back to JC's doctrine of temporary faith. Do you accept that?
quote:Yes, exactly.
Originally posted by Papio:
Anyway, if God is outside of time then for God I have not been born yet and won't be for hundreds of years, for God I am 12 years old, for God I am 76 (he says, hopefully), for God I have been physically dead for a thousand years, for God I am already in Heaven or Hell.
quote:Its an insight of great worth! But I have to break it to you that it wasn't quite yours. Augustine and Athanasius beleived it, and Boethius wrote about it it great detail in what became the most commonly copied popular book of philosophy of the Middle Ages. Dante put it in the Divine Comedy and I first heard of it at a talk in a school Christian Union meeting given by a bloke who I think may have got the idea from CS Lewis.
So my theological "insight", which is most probably of no worth at all but to which I want a response anyway, is that perhaps what we experience as God not allowing us to go, or God hardening our hearts, is simply a reflection of an eternity which God forknows (to us) but does not predestine and which to God is already existant.
quote:Yes. That's what I was taught at the first church I went to when I was converted, and its what most of the Christians through whom I was converted believed, and its what I believe now.
The problems with this are that if someone, such as myself, finds that God will not let go of them (although in my case, God allows frequent lapses in conversation, some of which last for years, and a great many doubts and difficulties with belief) then one may presume that one shall be saved - indeed, to God, has already been saved and is already in Heaven
quote:Why not good? It liberates us from the fear of the stern angry God who is always looking for some excuse to damn us to Hell and allows us to trust the loving Father God who is never going to abandon or reject us, even when we seem unlovable and unworthy. It frees us from looking on the faith as a mountain to climb, or a punishment to endure, or a series of commands every one of which must be obeyed to the letter. It allows us to love God freely because we know his love for us is sure for ever.
which would be a cheek and a presumption and generally not good.
quote:Yes, it might. Which is why people should trust on God's promises in Jesus as recorded in the Bible, that all who call on the name of the LORD will be saved.
The other problem is that it may lead someone to believe that they are already damned, when in fact they are not.
quote:And the common belief is that we're born inherently sinful unable to do good or turn to God? Have any of these questioned that doctrine?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:It differs not at all. Because most Baptists worldwide probably are Calvinists (in the wide sense). And many Anglicans are too. Maybe even most. And even those that aren't are almost all subscribers to other flavours of Christianity tradition (such as Arminianism) that also acknowledge the idea of Original Sin.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Don't all these start with Augustine's Original Sin idea? What do Calvinists say about this and how is it different from Anglicans or Baptists and so on?
quote:I don't see anything of the faith I hold in your caricature. Whatever you want to be free of, it's not Orthodoxy.
Originally posted by ken:
It liberates us from the fear of the stern angry God who is always looking for some excuse to damn us to Hell and allows us to trust the loving Father God who is never going to abandon or reject us, even when we seem unlovable and unworthy. It frees us from looking on the faith as a mountain to climb, or a punishment to endure, or a series of commands every one of which must be obeyed to the letter. It allows us to love God freely because we know his love for us is sure for ever.
quote:This is hardly consistent with the view that the Reprobate have no desire after God.
Edwards briefly but pungently expounds upon twelve signs that "are no certain signs that religious affections are truly gracious, or that they are not." . . . These "neutral signs" include . . fervor for God, increase in love for God and man . . moving testimonies, increased urges to praise God, and zeal in carrying out Christian duty
quote:What about the verse which says something like not everyone who cries Lord! Lord! will be saved?
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, it might. Which is why people should trust on God's promises in Jesus as recorded in the Bible, that all who call on the name of the LORD will be saved.
quote:How does one go about 'realising' one is not 'saved'?
Originally posted by franknhonest:
I am a reprobate who once thought he was saved but later realised he never had been.
quote:Well I apologise if I come off as brash. It is very easy to do on the Internet.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So because you find Calvinism reprehensible, you believe this frees you to be aggressive towards those who believe it (or at least partially)? I think Calvinism is a bit of a spectrum and I'm honestly not sure exactly where m.t-tomb fits within that spectrum. You know, there may be a little bit of danger here akin to that caused by regarding all Muslims as Wahhabi-Muslims. All Calvinist are equal, but some are more equal than others.
quote:Not very much -being saved is a long process. I'd rather talk about the topic at hand rather than my walk right now though!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Does your theology inform the morality of your behaviour towards people who are different. Clearly as a universalist, you are very likely to believe that we are all made in God's image and loved unconditionally by Him.I just wondered how your belief in His unconditional love impacted your ability to do the same. "
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:How defined?
Originally posted by franknhonest:
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
quote:What's all this about 'C of E beliefs'? Wasn't it Archbishop Fisher (no anglo-catholic or liberal he) who said something like: 'the C of E has no doctrine of its own, but only the doctrine of the Catholic Church [with or without capital letters]'
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Rather confusing for those searching C of E beliefs to meet you first.
Do you reject Augustine's altogether? Do other priests in the C of E?
Myrrh
quote:You're still alive so you haven't! (Its a POV)
Originally posted by Papio:
I don't know if I have committed the unforgivable sin or not, really.
quote:I'd be surprised if many Anglicans are conscious Calvinists. You might be able to identify elements of Calvinism... but I doubt many would readily admit to it... and few would wholeheartedly sign up to the TULIP formulation.
Originally posted by ken:
Because most Baptists worldwide probably are Calvinists (in the wide sense). And many Anglicans are too. Maybe even most.
quote:This one certainly isn't, conscious or unconscious.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd be surprised if many Anglicans are conscious Calvinists.
quote:And if you had you would not be in slightest bit worried about having done it. Even the slightest fearful inkling that you *may* have committed this sin is evidence enough that you haven't.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:You're still alive so you haven't! (Its a POV)
Originally posted by Papio:
I don't know if I have committed the unforgivable sin or not, really.
quote:Edwards is talking about religious affection or in modern language emotionally charged charismatic phenomena in the context of revival.
Originally posted by anteater:
m-t-tomb:
It's 30 years since I read "The Religious Affections", so I'm relying on the overall feel of the book which is all about the many manifestations of religion apart from saving grace. I don't have a copy, so I hope you may accept the review of it (found at http://www.founders.org/FJ53/article3_fr.html) which is totally favourable.
quote:This is hardly consistent with the view that the Reprobate have no desire after God.
Edwards briefly but pungently expounds upon twelve signs that "are no certain signs that religious affections are truly gracious, or that they are not." . . . These "neutral signs" include . . fervor for God, increase in love for God and man . . moving testimonies, increased urges to praise God, and zeal in carrying out Christian duty
quote:By faith in his promises.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'll ask here what I asked on the Hell thread and never got an answer to: How does any Calvinist know that he/she is among the elect and not among the damned?
quote:They make shipwreck of their faith by not bearing fruit or walking as Jesus did.
Don't any Calvinists ever fall away and die reprobate, proving that their former confidence was misplaced?
quote:Yeah... but... you can't see the future.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
By faith in his promises.
quote:QED, surely? You have faith in his promises but you have no guarantee that you will not make a shipwreck of that faith in the future. Therefore your assurance is dubious unless you're actually a universalist.
Don't any Calvinists ever fall away and die reprobate, proving that their former confidence was misplaced?quote:
They make shipwreck of their faith by not bearing fruit or walking as Jesus did.
quote:Hadn't heard of him before but the Anglo CAtholics claim him. It seems to me, from this setting, he'd reject your interpretation of his words.
Originally posted by angloid:
quote:What's all this about 'C of E beliefs'? Wasn't it Archbishop Fisher (no anglo-catholic or liberal he) who said something like: 'the C of E has no doctrine of its own, but only the doctrine of the Catholic Church [with or without capital letters]'
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Rather confusing for those searching C of E beliefs to meet you first.
Do you reject Augustine's altogether? Do other priests in the C of E?
Myrrh
quote:Anyway, if he includes Augustine in Roman Catholic, then the time the Roman and Orthodox Catholics were united was pre Augustine's divisive influence. Pelagius was a Celt and orthodox Catholic who objected to Augustine's Original Sin doctrine as an innovation. He put it down to Manichean influence.
The Anglican Catholic Church believes that same faith as the once united Roman and Orthodox Churches did in the past.
" We have no doctrine of our own. We only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, and these creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We Stand firm on that rock " - Archbishop Fisher.
quote:It's been the Roman Catholic doctrine and those deriving their origins from it for all the centuries since Augustine, hasn't it? How can you dismiss the effect this has had on the West by saying it's "in some way part of the doctrine of the catholic church" when Augustine's core premise is the rock on which Roman and Anglican doctrines were built and the Orthodox have never accepted it? That Rome's influence and domination managed to impose this on the Church in Britain by making Britain part of the Roman Church is not synonyous with this doctrine being part of the catholic church.
No doubt Augustine's doctrine is in some way part of the doctrine of the catholic church, but it has to be held in tension with all the rest.
quote:I'm feeling a sense of deja vu here, the RCC has now incorporated so many concepts from the Orthodox that converts and younger Catholics don't know the Church ever taught Augustine! (Conversely, there's a lot of Augustine infiltrating Orthodox churches).
I don't see how 'original sin' and 'total depravity' necessarily amount to the same thing. In fact, seeing as sin means 'missing the mark', or failing to become what we essentially are, they are probably two completely different things.
quote:The exoneration of Pelagius is already a done thing, two eastern councils found for him and against Augustine's doctrines which were deemed heretical. http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/pelagius2.htm
I realise how grateful I am to good old (never thought I'd say that) Archbishop Cranmer whose communion serrvice contains the words of Jesus: 'Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.' [Matt 7.21] That burned its way into my soul as an impressionable teenager and is what I think of as Anglicanism. I suspect that Ken is wrong in thinking 'most' anglicans are Calvinists. Maybe in parts of Africa and Sydney: but if the C of E is prone to any heresy it is more likely Pelagianism. (But if the above quote is Pelagian so is our Lord, or at least the author of Matthew's gospel.)
quote:Do you agree with Augustine that without baptism we're in a sinful nature unable to do good?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:This one certainly isn't, conscious or unconscious.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd be surprised if many Anglicans are conscious Calvinists.
quote:I hope for universal salvation but can't hold it definitely because the Church has never taught it and it is not clear from the Bible.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Ken, are you still a Universalist?
quote:Nonsense. Augustine was saying what was the mind of the whole Chich at the time, and that time was 400 years before the schism. The idea that Augustine made all this up, like the idea that the Orthodox were always opposed to it, is I suspect a modern invention of the last few generations, made up as an easy argument against Rome.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Anyway, if he includes Augustine in Roman Catholic, then the time the Roman and Orthodox Catholics were united was pre Augustine's divisive influence.
quote:He was very likely a Celt, but he wasn't an Orthodox Catholic by a hell of a long way. And why do you think he "put it down to Manichean influence"? Have you read one single word he wrote?
Pelagius was a Celt and orthodox Catholic who objected to Augustine's Original Sin doctrine as an innovation. He put it down to Manichean influence.
quote:Yes. Within the Church of England, Anglo-Catholicism is on the whole more theologically liberal than Evangelicalism.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, I think I'm floundering here - are Anglo-Catholics some sort of liberals
quote:Augustine's doctrine was made up by him, it is unknown in any traditions of the Jews and alien to the mind of the apostolic Church at the time - it is not Scriptural even though Augustine concocted it from misreading of Scripture and most importantly, by rejecting what the Church was teaching.
Originally posted by ken:
Nonsense. Augustine was saying what was the mind of the whole Chich at the time, and that time was 400 years before the schism. The idea that Augustine made all this up, like the idea that the Orthodox were always opposed to it, is I suspect a modern invention of the last few generations, made up as an easy argument against Rome.
quote:Orthodox Catholic Celts were the norm before Augustine's influence. As for reading Pelagius, most of what we know is from his protagonists so he has been much maligned and unfairly; the link I gave is to a letter he wrote and I'm about to begin reading his commentary on Romans, but not sure as yet how much that is Pelagius.
He was very likely a Celt, but he wasn't an Orthodox Catholic by a hell of a long way. And why do you think he "put it down to Manichean influence"? Have you read one single word he wrote?
quote:Since people can live moral, happy, productive lives without a belief in God (I can cite several studies), why is blaspheming the Holy Spirit an unforgivable sin? What does it say about God if He casts otherwise righteous people into Hell? Is anything we do during our finite time on Earth worthy of eternal punishment?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As far as I can make out from Scripture, the unforgivable sin consists in blaspheming the Holy Spirit...
My guess is that most of those who are committing this sin are totally respectable people--pillars of the community, bankers and teachers and doctors, even church leaders.
...better to leave them to go to hell quietly.
quote:Hadn't hear of "traducian" before, but have just found this reference to the word in an analysis of an analysis of the argument Julian had with Augustine.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
By the way the above doctrine is called traducianism. Calvin didn't hold it but Luther did. It is still the majority Lutheran view and many Calvinists now hold it. Jonathan Edwards - the preminent American Puritan - also held it.
The 'opposite' doctirne is called creationism, which basically holds that God creates each human spirit ex nihilo and bestows it upon the foetus at the point of conception.
quote:ST. AUGUSTINE AND JULIAN OF ECLANUM: Manichean influence? by Yuri Kuchinsky
Both Traducians and Manicheans asserted that evil contracted from some ancient and unfortunate event is passed down by reproduction throughout the ages." (p. 308)
quote:What makes you think someone who is otherwise righteous would blaspheme the Holy Spirit?
Originally posted by Skeptic:
Since people can live moral, happy, productive lives without a belief in God (I can cite several studies), why is blaspheming the Holy Spirit an unforgivable sin? What does it say about God if He casts otherwise righteous people into Hell?
quote:Its a weird kind of Orthodox that disagrees with the Fathers of the Church and accepts someone they considered a heretic while condemning somene they all accepted as an Orthodox and Catholic bishop!
Originally posted by Myrrh:
There is nothing Christian in Augustine if by Christian we mean it accords with Christ's teaching...
quote:Franknhonest,
Originally posted by franknhonest:
Divine Outlaw Dwarf - through self-examination and scripture.
In my case it was simple - blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
quote:Since righteousness concerns adhering to moral principles and blasphemy can be something as simple as believing man created God, the two are not mutually exclusive. Since it is theoretically possible, humor me and pretend such a creature exists for my example.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What makes you think someone who is otherwise righteous would blaspheme the Holy Spirit?
quote:When I was a teenager I was really worried that I had committed this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I was told that if I was worried or concerned about this then I obviously hadn't committed it!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
You are confusing blasphemy as a blanket term and "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" which is a particular blasphemy (which, I submit, none of us can identify with any certainty).
Anyway, I don't believe God condemns people to Hell for not believing in Him. Not my dance card.
quote:Anyone with your basic honesty certainy hasn't. As stated in a previous post. The sin against the Holy Spirit was a national sin.
Originally posted by Papio:
Is it clear whether or not anybody at all has committed the unforgivable sin? I don't mean in individual cases. Is it possible that of all the people who have ever lived, or are alive at this moment, not even one of them has ever committed the unforgivable sin?
quote:Well you can't argue from context that it was anything else.
Originally posted by mdijon:
At the risk of deepending the tangent... I'm not sure it was necessarily a national sin -
quote:Not sure I completely agree with this Ken. For my part I tend to diffferentiate Anglo-Catholicism and Liberal-Catholicism. Anglo-Catholicism, ISTM, is a bit like evangelicalism but with lots of ritual and a Roman take on the Eucharist. Liberal-Catholicism tends to be a bit like an entropic, slightly beffudled version of Anglo-Catholicism. However, that does not mean that all liberal Anglicans are beffudled and vague: on the contrary, there are people on the ship who self-identofy as liberal who can argue their corner extremely well and convincingly.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Yes. Within the Church of England, Anglo-Catholicism is on the whole more theologically liberal than Evangelicalism.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, I think I'm floundering here - are Anglo-Catholics some sort of liberals
quote:Yes that's right I can't, but many of God's promises in Scripture pertain to the future. I pray that God will give me the faith to believe what he has promised. I know - based on God's character - that God will give me faith if I ask because the faith I have now came from him. I therefore trust his character as generous and that every spiritual blessing in Christ is mine. I therefore ask God for those blessings in order to stay faithful, to bear fruit and to walk as Jesus did.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Yeah... but... you can't see the future.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
By faith in his promises.
quote:Perhaps, but whose point has been proved? Yours or mine?
Don't any Calvinists ever fall away and die reprobate, proving that their former confidence was misplaced?quote:
They make shipwreck of their faith by not bearing fruit or walking as Jesus did.
QED, surely?
quote:The guarantee I have is God. He has promised me that I will persevere and God doesn't break his promises. I therefore trust him to keep his promises to me and, as yet, he hasn't welched.
You have faith in his promises but you have no guarantee that you will not make a shipwreck of that faith in the future. Therefore your assurance is dubious unless you're actually a universalist.
quote:You no doubt wish they were! However, guilt by association won't wash in this case. St Paul was a Pharisee: apply the same logic to his theology and you lose a massive wodge of the New Testament!
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Hadn't hear of "traducian" before, but have just found this reference to the word in an analysis of an analysis of the argument Julian had with Augustine.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
[qb] By the way the above doctrine is called traducianism. Calvin didn't hold it but Luther did. It is still the majority Lutheran view and many Calvinists now hold it. Jonathan Edwards - the preminent American Puritan - also held it.
The 'opposite' doctirne is called creationism, which basically holds that God creates each human spirit ex nihilo and bestows it upon the foetus at the point of conception.
quote:
Both Traducians and Manicheans asserted that evil contracted from some ancient and unfortunate event is passed down by reproduction throughout the ages." (p. 308)
Are these doctrines examples from the same Traducians?
Myrrh
quote:Actually, given that the text refers to "anyone" rather than "any nation", I think you have to make a fairly watertight argument from the context that it refers to a nation - and the context, to me, seems to be Pharisees who accused Jesus of working by the power of satan.
Originally posted by Jamac:
Well you can't argue from context that it was anything else.
quote:The Pharisees had accused him of being demon possessed. They were the key leadership group of the time. After this he went private, started to teach in parables, demanded faith for healings.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Actually, given that the text refers to "anyone" rather than "any nation", I think you have to make a fairly watertight argument from the context that it refers to a nation - and the context, to me, seems to be Pharisees who accused Jesus of working by the power of satan.
Originally posted by Jamac:
Well you can't argue from context that it was anything else.
I don't see how that leads one to conclude a national sin is meant.
quote:I maintain that a non-elect person will never cry out to Christ for salvation only to be turned away because in fact God hasn't chosen them. That is heresy and I do not beleive it. If that really is 'mainstream Calvinism' then I'm happy to say that I don't hold that view. However, I don't think it is mainstream Calvinism and I'm fairly confident that you've somehow misunderstood it. A reprobate hates God and sees no value in Christ whatsoever; Romans 8.7-8:
Originally posted by anteater:
m-t-tomb:
Maybe I misunderstood your earlier post about how you can say with confidence to an enquirer, than God loves them and positively desires their salvation. I understood you as implying that the non-elect would not be enquiring after the gospel, since . .they are non-elect. This is all I am challenging and not main-stream calvinism,
and I think the case of JE shows this.
quote:This describes a person before God regenerates them; dead in sin, hostile to God, incapable of pleasing him. Anyone who is truly reprobate stays like this from the cradle to the grave. They make no attempt to seek God because God has not called them to himself. John 4.44
...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
quote:Therefore I take this to mean what it says; anyone who makes an approach to Jesus must be elect because Jesus said that 'no-one can come to him unless the Father draws him'. Hence anyone who displays even the slightest inkling of interest in Christ must have received that from the Father. This is grace! Why? Because God doesn't have to call anyone; he would be perfectly justified if he left eveyone dead in sin. The problem with this, as Matt Black and others have pointed out, is that it raises the question, 'Why doesn't God call all?'.
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
quote:Absolutely. It seems to me that the Calvinist view works fine if he does - not if he does't.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The problem with this, as Matt Black and others have pointed out, is that it raises the question, 'Why doesn't God call all?'.
quote:Sorry to be a pest, but I really would like a comment on this one, please. I think it's important.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't understand (agree with) this bit: "Arminians say that regeneration restores free will so that subject then decides for or indeed against Christ."
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I think that freewill kicks in after regeneration. This is the position of Calvinist and Arminians alike. Calvinist say that post regeneration saving grace is effectual because Christ's beauty is irresistible to the truly free, whereas Arminians say that regeneration restores free will so that subject then decides for or indeed against Christ. What Calvinists object to in this view is the suggestion that a person with perfect free will would ever choose to reject Christ. the Reformed view is that Christ is so very lovely that anyone with free will will choose him.
I've never heard that before! Are you saying that a person is regenerate THEN has free will to choose or reject? Because if you are that is so not the case with Arminian/Wesleyan theology.
What I believe is that we are given prevenient grace which then allows the choice - but prevenient grace is not saving grace (regeneration).
Again, it seems that the stuff you disagree with is not actually what we believe.
quote:Weird, but true.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Its a weird kind of Orthodox that disagrees with the Fathers of the Church and accepts someone they considered a heretic while condemning somene they all accepted as an Orthodox and Catholic bishop!
Originally posted by Myrrh:
There is nothing Christian in Augustine if by Christian we mean it accords with Christ's teaching...
quote:You misunderstand me, that's exactly what I do and I don't lose an iota of it...
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
You no doubt wish they were! However, guilt by association won't wash in this case. St Paul was a Pharisee: apply the same logic to his theology and you lose a massive wodge of the New Testament!
quote:When did they become hostile to God?
As for traducianism and the idea that sex itself is sinful: I don't think this washes. God created sex and I think that Adam and Eve enjoyed sex before the Fall. Had they pro-created before the fall their children would have inherited unfallen souls. However, they did fall and their flesh (note: not physical body per se) became hostile to God. This hostility to God is passed on generationally. Hereditary disease is passed on sexually but that doesn't mean that sex is evil. The sinful nature is passed on generationally - through the sexual act - but that doesn't make the sexual act bad at all! In fact it really doesn't change anything in reality because everyone shares the fallen nature of Adam and Eve: it's just the way things are.
quote:Tangent: And yet the entire church sacramental system is built on his definition that a sacrament is the visible sign of an invisible grace - something the Bible knows nothing about.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Augustine is a heretic because he invented a whole new concept of God and mankind's relationship to him, but especially because he insisted on imposing his views onto the Church. I'm sure Christ makes sense to people whatever their views, but Christianity doesn't make sense in the limitations of his thinking.
Myrrh
quote:Answer: At the point of first disodedience. Question: At what point does something become polluted? Answer: When a pollutant is introduced.
When did they (Adam and Eve) become hostile to God?
quote:To which M.T-Tomb responded:
Mudfrog asked
quote:Sorry to be a pest, but I really would like a comment on this one, please. I think it's important.
Are you saying that a person is regenerate THEN has free will to choose or reject? Because if you are that is so not the case with Arminian/Wesleyan theology.
What I believe is that we are given prevenient grace which then allows the choice - but prevenient grace is not saving grace (regeneration).
Again, it seems that the stuff you disagree with is not actually what we believe.
Ta.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:This is where I think you are mitigating the harshness of predestination by implying that the non-elect don't give a **** for christianty, whereas mainstream calvinism as always accepted that many many people have a great concern for salvation, and become members of believing churches (in some case even Pastors), and yet fall back into apostasy, or even die in their belief that they are saved, when all they have is a nominal christianity.
The idea that a person might want to be saved but in fact not be one of the 'chosen' is anathema to me and to Calvinism. The unelect never want to be saved and have never wanted to be saved. The possibility of Christ has never for one moment even crossed their minds.
quote:Whilst it is true, of course, that theology is influenced by contemporary theology; it is also true that each is influenced by more general patterns of social existence at any given time.
Originally posted by Astro:
Any link?
quote:I think Priest Gregory would be more familiar with the differences/similarities between Orthodox and Protestants here, but I think this doesn't quite capture Orthodox understanding which doesn't make the division between sign and grace that's made here. Anyway, all the Church's work is sacramental and this limitation to 7 isn't Orthodox.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[Tangent: And yet the entire church sacramental system is built on his definition that a sacrament is the visible sign of an invisible grace - something the Bible knows nothing about.
quote:I can't think of any time the Orthodox Church built bonfires to obliterate those which disagreed with it. Perhaps because we didn't have Augustine who first justified violence against heretics as acceptable Christian practice, so incidents of un-Christian violence were never dogmatised as part of the faith. The RCC developed Augustine's idea to the nth degree..
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
For people who accuse Calvinists of theological totalitarianism you Orthodox seem to be doing a lot of anathematising!
I can just imagine you all, bearded and zealous, ecstatically capering around a well built bonfire...
quote:Myrrh
St John (Maximovich)The Word Anathema and its Meaning
quote:This would fit better on the hell thread than the purg thread, surely?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
For people who accuse Calvinists of theological totalitarianism you Orthodox seem to be doing a lot of anathematising!
I can just imagine you all, bearded and zealous, ecstatically capering around a well built bonfire...
quote:God's fault then, since he predestined it...
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Myrrh asked:quote:Answer: At the point of first disodedience. Question: At what point does something become polluted? Answer: When a pollutant is introduced.
When did they (Adam and Eve) become hostile to God?
Adam's disobedience caused the pollution of humanity.
quote:I agree. It would have been great on the hell thread! However, it wasn't meant nastily; just as friendly jibe. The point remains though; I don't think I've resorted to the words heretic or heresy on the ship in, oooh, days. That's got to make me more tolerant of differnce, surely.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:This would fit better on the hell thread than the purg thread, surely?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
For people who accuse Calvinists of theological totalitarianism you Orthodox seem to be doing a lot of anathematising!
I can just imagine you all, bearded and zealous, ecstatically capering around a well built bonfire...
quote:You never read much Russian history then. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in the name of Christ by people claiming to be Orthodox Christians. Old Believers, Doukhobors, and of course Jews.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I can't think of any time the Orthodox Church built bonfires to obliterate those which disagreed with it.
quote:Here goes...
Where does Scripture show we were incapable of doing good before Christ?
quote:
[T]he sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8.7-8
quote:
As for you (that's Christians), you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts (see Romans 8.8 above). Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive (i.e. God raised us, like Jesus raised Lazarus) with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this (i.e. faith) not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2.1.-9
quote:
[E]verything that does not come from faith is sin. Romans 14.23b
quote:Must I continue? I'm sure Gordon Cheng would enjoy reading this post but it might be a little dry for some!
He who does what is sinful is of the devil (see Ephesians 2.1-2), because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God (see Romans 8.8 above); nor is anyone who does not love his brother. 1 John 3.10
quote:Read the first one again.
Originally posted by mdijon:
All of those quotes describe the sinful nature of humans. I think all would be agreed. But none of them finish off with "and can therefore do no good unless elected and given grace".
quote:You can. I have no idea who or how many are "elect", and I don't think anyone else does either.
Originally posted by mdijon:
... I'm still unclear as to why we can't believe that all are called - all are "elect" - all have a chance to respond.
quote:Well if you want to take offence then so be it. I'd be sad if you did though.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I can just imagine you raping a 12-year old schoolgirl.
Just a friendly jibe there.
I'm not buying it.
quote:Don't be - he gives offense at least as much as he takes it.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
... I'd be sad if you did though.
quote:Ok. Now what?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Read the first one again.
quote:Is your face turning blue?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Still waiting.
You're not that busy M.T-Tomb, because you keep replying to other people.
quote:Maybe you just asked a very difficult question that requires a lot of thought and a careful reply?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Still waiting.
You're not that busy M.T-Tomb, because you keep replying to other people.
quote:Many a true word said in jest. Seriously, I am busy and it is a good question.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Maybe you just asked a very difficult question that requires a lot of thought and a careful reply?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Still waiting.
You're not that busy M.T-Tomb, because you keep replying to other people.
quote:Possibly they did use bonfires, but I was thinking more of the systematic doctrine generated violence; the `burning of witches, the RCC two swords and Unam Sanctam, the Inquisition and so on where bonfires, forced conversion and the slaughter of heretics is mandated. The general development from Augustine of the just war doctrine, not that you won't hear Orthodox arguing for it now.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You never read much Russian history then. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in the name of Christ by people claiming to be Orthodox Christians. Old Believers, Doukhobors, and of course Jews.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I can't think of any time the Orthodox Church built bonfires to obliterate those which disagreed with it.
quote:So all of Holy Scripture is contained in Paul?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Myrrh asked:quote:Here goes...
Where does Scripture show we were incapable of doing good before Christ?
quote:So, if Paul acknowledges that those who do good are of God and those who do evil are of the devil, then how can you say that we are in total depravity since Adam and Eve when the OT is all about God teaching us to do good and not evil and the many examples of those who walked in righteousness with God? If we were incapable of keeping the commandments before baptism in Christ, how did Zacharias and Elizabeth were without sin? "And they were both righteous before the face of God, walking in all the commandments and ordinacnes of the Lord blameless.
quote:
[T]he sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8.7-8quote:
As for you (that's Christians), you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts (see Romans 8.8 above). Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive (i.e. God raised us, like Jesus raised Lazarus) with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this (i.e. faith) not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2.1.-9quote:
[E]verything that does not come from faith is sin. Romans 14.23bquote:Must I continue? I'm sure Gordon Cheng would enjoy reading this post but it might be a little dry for some!
He who does what is sinful is of the devil (see Ephesians 2.1-2), because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God (see Romans 8.8 above); nor is anyone who does not love his brother. 1 John 3.10
quote:Excellent way to absolve yourself of responsibility for what you say. I shall have to remember this.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Well if you want to take offence then so be it. I'd be sad if you did though.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I can just imagine you raping a 12-year old schoolgirl.
Just a friendly jibe there.
I'm not buying it.
quote:Well, you're free to have any opinion I suppose.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm sorry Jamac, but that all reads like speculation. There are very few hard links. One could make similar links between almost any parable or statement Jesus made and the Jewish nation. It may be that some Jewish leaders are guilty of such "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"... but I really don't see that the passage appears exclusive to them or that situation... any more than the millstones around necks can be made specific to the Jewish nation.
quote:The forced conversion of unbelievers pre-dates Augustine. There was this little thing called the Edict of Theodosius in the year 380, enthusiastically cheered on by the Orthodox Bishops. Between the death of Constantine and the rise of the Dutch Republic there are virtually no examples of Christian polities which tolerated unbelievers. East or West. Which leads me to suspect that Augustine may not be solely to blame for this.
Possibly they did use bonfires, but I was thinking more of the systematic doctrine generated violence; the `burning of witches, the RCC two swords and Unam Sanctam, the Inquisition and so on where bonfires, forced conversion and the slaughter of heretics is mandated. The general development from Augustine of the just war doctrine, not that you won't hear Orthodox arguing for it now.
As for the Old Believers and anti-Semitism, well a lot of that did come in with ideas from the West, as did serfdom...
quote:I'd agree with the argument you develop - I think one can describe Christ as being in conflict with the religious leadership of the Jewish nation, and say many of his statements in that light.
Originally posted by Jamac:
Take the time to do this with the synoptic Gospels and you see clearly that Jesus' quarrel was with the generation who rejected his claims....... However, the diatribe against those who see God's messenger as Satanically inspired has clear implications for the whole nation.....What sort of evidence would convince you MDJ?
quote:I'd previously understood that St. Augustine was almost unknown in the East... that the polution of Christian doctrine from his mouth was the undoing of the West... but now we find that Just war and anti-semitism have leached across from his pen/the West... he must have had considerable influence after all.
Originally posted by Callan:
Does it ever occur to you Myrrh that there may be evils in the world which are not attributable to the ever fertile pen of St. Augustine?
quote:Sorry about the long delay in replying to these but I wanted to get things straight in my head rather than mislead you.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And the common belief is that we're born inherently sinful unable to do good or turn to God? Have any of these questioned that doctrine?
quote:No. However, it's not that simple - because I agree with the common perceptions of Augustine against Pelagius (I've not actually read Pelagius and I'm reading Augustine in more detail than I have in the past) that we are born in such a state of being that living a sinless life and thus being righteous by deed is practically impossible. A good deed is a good deed, an evil deed is an evil deed whoever does it.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:Do you agree with Augustine that without baptism we're in a sinful nature unable to do good?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:This one certainly isn't, conscious or unconscious.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd be surprised if many Anglicans are conscious Calvinists.
quote:The categories along which Anglicans align themselves are not as simple as you want them to be. There are Anglo-Catholic conservatives and liberals (on various issues that don't necessarily overlap) just as there are Evangelical conservatives and liberals and so on. The recent changes might be focussing a particular section of Anglo-Catholicism but it's been around for centuries, not a couple of years.
OK, I think I'm floundering here - are Anglo-Catholics some sort of liberals and not, as I'm imagining them, those looking to Rome because of recent changes in the Anglican Church?
quote:I've thought very hard about this and I've decided that, on balance and taking all things into account, I wouldn't actually torch calvinists.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I can just imagine you all, bearded and zealous, ecstatically capering around a well built bonfire...
quote:I agree with that, for what little that's worth.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I hope for universal salvation but can't hold it definitely because the Church has never taught it and it is not clear from the Bible.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Ken, are you still a Universalist?
quote:Maybe that isn't true. Some of the consequences - fallen earth etc. - might be shared, but not all of them. Wouldn't Jesus have been in the same boat otherwise as the second Adam?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Protestant idea that Adam's sin and its consequences are imputed to all regardless of actual sin
quote:If it's good enough for Benedict it's good enough for me. I'm sorry about the reaction that my comment has caused.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Excellent way to absolve yourself of responsibility for what you say. I shall have to remember this.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Well if you want to take offence then so be it. I'd be sad if you did though.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I can just imagine you raping a 12-year old schoolgirl.
Just a friendly jibe there.
I'm not buying it.
quote:Well, I think it's possible that people come to church for whole host of reasons and that some of those reasons have noting to do with Christ. I know I do. I also think it's possible that some people come to church without any thought for Christ at all. They may well go through service after service after service without ever giving Christ a thought in a genuinely Christian sense. However, that does not mean that a person can come to church genuinely seeking Christ but in fact turn out not to be on God's list. I say this because Jesus said that no-one can come to him unless the father has drawn him. I do think that there is a difference between coming to Christ and going to church.
f you are prepared to state that according to the tenets of your version of Calvinism, it is inconceivable that any member of your own church is reprobate, then you are right in stating that your strand of Calvinism is different from what I know (which was straight Banner of Truth, so not extreme).
If you accept the possibility that members of your church could be reprobate, I think that contradicts your view that the non-elect give no thought to Christ.
quote:You do not understand the doctrine of total depravity; you need to read up on it before we continue our discussion.
The doctrine of total depravity, estranged from God, unable to do good is a lie.
quote:Hence my concerns regarding Romans 5.18 which seems to suggest exactly that.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Permit me to throw another soterioligical hand-grenade into the pre-existing milieu: going back to the Protestant idea that Adam's sin and its consequences are imputed to all regardless of actual sin and that righteousness is imputed through the substitutionary crucifixion of Jesus, if the condemnation is imputed to all regardless of action why isn't the righteousness likewise imputed to all regardless of action?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What a tosspot! INSTITUTES. At least it showed my ignorance was real. Here's the link.
quote:But doesn't Calvinism just substitute the theological problems of Arminianism for different ones?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Where Calvinism and Arminianism differ is this: Calvinism acknowledges that it is indeed possible to resist God's overtures of intimacy but in addition to this also holds that God can - and indeed does - intentionally overcome our resistance to him.
quote:But why? The Arminian is at least able to claim that our resistance to God is our own fault; it isn't God's doing. That isn't a wholely satisfactory answer for a whole heap of reasons, but I submit that it's a better answer than that God predestines people to resist him.
Calvinism holds that God does suffer himself to be resisted; in fact sometimes God will suffer himself to be resisted by some people for their entire lives.
quote:Is `allows' the right word here? By not `electing' these people, surely he mandates their life-long resistance?
So, with regard to reprobation: God allows some people to resist him for a lifetime.
quote:As I've tried to say before, this is a highly technical use of the phrase `free will'. I understand that a stage hypnotist cannot command a person to strip his clothes on stage, but can implant the idea in the `victim's' mind that it is as hot as a sauna, thus stripping is a sensible thing to do. I don't think I would ordinarily use the phrase `free will' to describe this kind of response. Surely to bring about a particular action in a person by playing with his head is just as much a violation of free will as a direct instruction would be?
This is what Calvinists mean when we say that God can make us make a free will decision. We mean that God regenerates us (monergism) so that we can convert (free will).
quote:That is really one of the two killer arguments. As I understand it sin has no positive ontology, which is to say when we sin we don't add something positive to a situation called sin, we take something away. For example, adultery isn't sinful because it involves sex, adultery is sinful because the act is deficient in justice. If we apply that to the Fall then what we are saying is that in sinning, Adam became less human rather than adding an extra component called sin to human nature. Now the Resurrection, AFAICS, is the reversal of that act, a restoration of the image of God which was damaged by the Fall. By making the Resurrection less efficacious than the Fall (i.e. everyone is damned in Adam but only the elect are saved in Christ) one is effectively saying that evil is more efficacious than good. The only way out is to say that God arbitrarily limits His goodness. Which strongly implies that God's goodness is not perfect.
Permit me to throw another soterioligical hand-grenade into the pre-existing milieu: going back to the Protestant idea that Adam's sin and its consequences are imputed to all regardless of actual sin and that righteousness is imputed through the substitutionary crucifixion of Jesus, if the condemnation is imputed to all regardless of action why isn't the righteousness likewise imputed to all regardless of action?
quote:I was trying to be tongue in cheek. I'm not good at humour in this medium, sorry Barnabas62!. I really should explain myself a bit more clearly.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:This is probably the best objection to the double-predestination by decree that I've come across. Food for thought...
The other objection which I think is crucial is that of Karl Barth, to wit predestination separates salvation from what is done on the cross, making it a consequence of an arbitrary and occult decision in eternity. The Incarnation is not, therefore, the pivot on which history turns but an epiphenomenon of the decision to elect or condemn made in eternity.
quote:Weeell, alright then.
Originally posted by Callan:
The crucifixion, surely, is an incident within the Incarnation?
Can we agree that the life-death-Resurrection-and-Ascenscion are said pivot?
(Cross-posted with mdijon)
for Calvin!quote:The interpretative issue for this puts all non-Universalists (which includes me) into the same boat. It depends how you read the "all" and what will we be made alive "for". I'd like to be a Universalist but it doesn't really seem up to me to proclaim it, given that it has to do with the Just Judge. So on first principles, Matt B, the lifting of the "curse of physical death", which might be seen as one (but not the only one) of the fruits of the resurrection, must indeed apply to all. That's very good news! But I cannot rule out that it might turn out to be exceedingly bad news for some others.
1 Corinthians 15:22 (New International Version)
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
quote:I didn't think it necessary at the time... but could I just clarify that when I said Universalism seemed the only sensible way out, I was talking about universal salvation...
Originally posted by chemincreux:
I wish someone like Psyduck could tell us what sort of mind can conceive of mankind as being totally concupiscent? Which is not the tangent it may at first sound, since this leads on to the idea that EVERYONE is basically destined, if not predestined, to hell.
quote:You wrote your reply at 11.23.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Honestly, I post a reply to Mudfrog and can he be bothered to read it?
quote:And that is just what J I Packer says in his essay on Universalism, in fact I've heard many people express similar sentiments.
Which is what RT Kendall say in his book Out of the Comfort Zone: Is your God too Nice?. Basically he affirms the doctirne particular redemption (election anf reprobation) but says that he wishes it wasn't like that. Essentially, that's what he says...
quote:Bonfires, guns, Cossacks, strarvation, the rack...
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Possibly they did use bonfires
quote:And I was thinking of the the systematic doctrine-generated violence deployed by the Russian Orthodox church, and by the Tsarist government (which were two sides of the same coin) against millions who dared to either leave it or question it
but I was thinking more of the systematic doctrine generated violence; the `burning of witches, the RCC two swords and Unam Sanctam, the Inquisition and so on where bonfires, forced conversion and the slaughter of heretics is mandated.
quote:
The general development from Augustine of the just war doctrine, not that you won't hear Orthodox arguing for it now.
quote:No, not the anti-semitism of the Old Believers (which some of them certainly had) but the persecution of the Old Believers by the mainstream Orthodox Church.
As for the Old Believers and anti-Semitism, well a lot of that did come in with ideas from the West, as did serfdom.
quote:Serfdom in Russia was all the fault of the Roman Catholics?
as did serfdom
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:So anti-semitism in Russia is all the fault of the Roman Catholics as well?
Initially I think Russia became more populated with Jews the worse things got for them in the West and then hate against them was generated in the East too.
quote:For once, I think I am speechless.
Jews feel very much at home in Russian temples -
quote:No, because the "Augustine" you have been criticising is a fictional character. A piece of Orthodox propaganda. A nasty made-up story to persuade the gullible that there is no point in paying any attention to the strange beliefs of those scary Papists or dour Prods.
Back to predestination v free will?
quote:At this time there wasn't the distinction between 'Orthodox' and 'Roman Catholic' so you're talking about the 'undivided Church' of East and West, our common bloody history from the time of Constantine's takeover.
Originally posted by Callan:
The forced conversion of unbelievers pre-dates Augustine. There was this little thing called the Edict of Theodosius in the year 380, enthusiastically cheered on by the Orthodox Bishops.
quote:As far as I know Orthodox countries like Georgia, which became Christian around the time of Constantine, didn't have any anti-semitism in their history until introduced by the tsars later on. I don't know of any forced conversion in Kievan-Rus as there was by the Roman Catholics in Lithuania, (who fought for nearly a hundred years to keep their freedom) nor have I heard of any antisemitic ideas in those first centuries of Russia's conversion. Until the beginning of the tsars the people were free but as this concept developed by creating a sub-class of 'barons' on the Western model with land given in return for support this later included ownership of the people on these lands.
Between the death of Constantine and the rise of the Dutch Republic there are virtually no examples of Christian polities which tolerated unbelievers. East or West.
quote:So, it appears Chrysostom's virulent antisemitism didn't have the same effect in the East as Augustine's did in the West.
Which leads me to suspect that Augustine may not be solely to blame for this.
The same applies to anti-Semitism which can be found in spades in the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Who predates Augustine and appears not to have been got at by the nasty Latins.
quote:Before the tsars Kievan-Rus was a mix of agrarian society and city states, the rulers were chosen by the people so not despotic, and in the IX-Xth centuries there was a great amount of export to Europe. Hardly a backward country any more than many countries in the West. The rise of serfdom comes with the rise of the tsar concept which as I said was modelled on the European system of a single ruler over a 'baron' elite and the subsequent creation of a serf class to service them. The kind of system that the Normans brought into Britain for example.
As to the argument that a backward, despotic and agrarian state needed the influence of the west to introduce serfdom, well that's just fatuous.
quote:But it's doctrine we're discussing here, the history is something you can check out for yourself, but there is without a doubt a causal effect from Augustine's doctrines which affected the West in a way which simply did not happen in the East. I'm not interested in discussing the history. I am interested in discussing the doctrine which came from Augustine which was not part of the mind of the Church in the East. I'm sorry, but we are different and there is a reason for the difference. We didn't have Augustine's Original Sin doctrine, we don't see humanity as depraved since Adam and Eve.
Does it ever occur to you Myrrh that there may be evils in the world which are not attributable to the ever fertile pen of St. Augustine?
quote:As Pelagius argued against the illogical concept of Original Sin.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Permit me to throw another soterioligical hand-grenade into the pre-existing milieu: going back to the Protestant idea that Adam's sin and its consequences are imputed to all regardless of actual sin and that righteousness is imputed through the substitutionary crucifixion of Jesus, if the condemnation is imputed to all regardless of action why isn't the righteousness likewise imputed to all regardless of action?
quote:
The first Jews in Western Georgia arrived in the 6th century when the region was ruled by the Byzantine Empire. Approximately 3,000 of these Jews then fled to Eastern Georgia, controlled by the Persians, to escape severe persecution by the Byzantines...
quote:Everybody who derails a thread would say no less.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's only exaggerated claims to the contrary that draw such a discussion from me, MT. I've ordinarily no desire for such a discussion.
quote:Thanks for your reply.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
My basic understanding regarding of Arminianism is this: by grace a person's free-will is restored. Their will - by grace - is restored to what is essentially a neutral position regarding the desirability of Jesus Christ for salvation. The person is then - on the basis of their free-will - able to choose one of two things: to beleive or not to beleive. The person is able to resist or to submit to God in Christ, to repent of their sins and proclaim Christ as their Lord.
MUDFROG HERE: No, I disagree. There is no neutral position. Prevenient Grace is more positive than this - it is 'designed' to encourage the person to choose salvation wholeheartedly, not to bring them to a plateau where they then make a rational choice - that would really be salvation by my own choice (works). While prevenient grace is working, the person can choose to follow the leadings and promptings of the Spirit wich will lead to saving grace being given, or they can choose to remain as they were, in unbelief. Unbelief is not a choice, it's the default position.
Basically, the Arminian approach, like Calvinism, maintains that grace is essential for conversion. Humanity is incapable of choosing Christ without God's gracious assistance.
MUDFROG HERE: Agreed; as long as you can make the distincyion between prevenient grace and saving grace. Prevenient grace cannot regenerate anyone. It merely leads to the point where the person repents and 'takes hold' of the grace that is being offered.
Where Calvinism and Arminianism differ is this: Calvinism acknowledges that it is indeed possible to resist God's overtures of intimacy but in addition to this also holds that God can - and indeed does - intentionally overcome our resistance to him. Calvinism holds that God does suffer himself to be resisted; in fact sometimes God will suffer himself to be resisted by some people for their entire lives. However, Calvinism also holds that God also intentionally restores a persons will to the point at which they make the positive decsion that Christ would stimulate in any unfallen heart. Calvinists see this as a restoration of free will, while at the same time acknowledging that any genuinely free decsion concerning Christ would be a positive one.
In a sense irresistible grace is this: it is a degree of grace given by God that makes Christ irresistible, not by suppressing the human will but by empowering the human will.
MUDFROG HERE: So this is the basic question that I and others are asking : why not everyone?
Christ is resistable only by fallen people (we know this!), therefore Christ simply would not be resisted by an unfallen (i.e. completely free) person. Calvinism simply asserts that God restores the human will - by grace (not in actuality) - to the point where it makes the right decision, where it makes the decison that it really would make if it were not hostile to God because of the sinful nature.
So, with regard to reprobation: God allows some people to resist him for a lifetime.
MUDFROG HERE: This is just torture. Giving someone the potential for choice and belief, and yet deliberately leaving them without the ability to make the choice is just cruel. It's like unlocking the prison door but not telling the prisoner to push. I can't see Jesus behaving like this. His mission was to release the captives and open the eyes of the blind. There is nothing about keeping people in blindness so they cannot choose.
And with regard to election: God restores (and overcomes) the resistance of the sinful nature (regeneration) thus empowering the will to make a positive decsion (a decison that any unfallen soul would make) with regard to Christ.
This is what Calvinists mean when we say that God can make us make a free will decision. We mean that God regenerates us (monergism) so that we can convert (free will). However, the conversion itself is predestined because the degree to which God restores the will makes Christ irresistible: the person will choose Christ. And this is not because their free-will has been weakened regarding Christ but because the will has been empowered to the point at which it can make a genuinely wise decision.
This the best I can do for the time being. Hope it helps.
quote:So Chrysostom did have an effect in the East? The picture is a bit more complicated I think because antisemitism goes back pre-Christianity in the Roman Empire so the Tertullians onward are those who have been happy to be influenced by this, there was a persecution of Jews in Alexandria around 38BC and they were confined to one area of the city, beginning of the ghetto idea?; Tiberius expelled them from Rome and Italy in 16AD and again in Alexandria there was mass slaughter of them in 66AD, 50,000 killed.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
The first Jews in Western Georgia arrived in the 6th century when the region was ruled by the Byzantine Empire. Approximately 3,000 of these Jews then fled to Eastern Georgia, controlled by the Persians, to escape severe persecution by the Byzantines...
quote:So it appears that the Jews weren't secure under any particular government, but at the whim of whoever was ruling in that government at the time?
438 Theodosius II, Roman emperor of the East, legalizes the civil inferiority of the Jews.
468 Persecutions of the Jews in Persia (Babylonia).
c. 470 Jews persecuted in Persia (Babylonia) by Firuz, the exilarch, and many Jews killed and their children given to Mazdeans.
quote:Mousethief, I have no desire to beat you up. But whilst your co-religionists insist on posting a version of history where everything east of the Landstrasse is sweetness and light and everything in the west demonstrates the malign influence of St Augustine - what one might call, in honour of the Tsarist Russia's most celebrated contribution to Christian-Jewish understanding, the Protocols of the Elders of Hippo version of history - it's hardly surprising that those of us from the west are going to want to post some small corrections and amendations to the thesis.
Can we please move the discussion of the evils of Orthodoxy to another thread? Pretty please? I promise I'll pop in there and you can beat me up.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Myrrh!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Meaningless question. Calvinism in this sense, (i.e. the TULIP Calvinism of the Synod of Dort) and Arminianism are different parties within the Reformed tradition ("Calvinism" in the wider sense). Asking whether the Orthodox are Cavlinist or Arminian is like asking a Chinese person whether they are French or German.
Originally posted by mdijon:
But we were here for Calvinism.... so are the Orthodox Calvinist or Arminian then?
quote:The Armenians are a quite separate bunch of people
My google searches seems to link Armenians with Orthodoxy...
quote:Well at least someone "got it".
Originally posted by ken:
The Armenians are a quite separate bunch of people
quote:Exactly my point too. But I shall desist from further derailing, lest I continue to say what anyone would say.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Myrrh!
quote:Sorry, I got it but just didn't think it was funny.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Well at least someone "got it".
Originally posted by ken:
The Armenians are a quite separate bunch of people
Sigh...
quote:Sorry, m-t-tomb, but that's a politician's answer. I specifically wanted you to face up to the possibility that members of your own church, with whom you pray and take communion, could be reprobate. I've made lots of assumptions, namely that you are in fellowship with a church which you believe makes reasonable attempts to exclude purely nominal members. So, if you are not in such a church,you are excused answering. If you are, I would like a straight answer.
Well, I think it's possible that people come to church for whole host of reasons and that some of those reasons have noting to do with Christ.
quote:
To all this I answer, That God indeed favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the temporal faith mentioned by Mark 4:17? There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up.
quote:Hmm.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Thanks, Ken
Myrrh - you appear to have convinced me over the last week that
- the Orthodox church is heterodox
- predestination is an invention (perhaps by St. Paul?)
- Orthodoxy has no conception of the Fall
- Pelagius was a sort of ascetic Friar Tuck
- Zionism is fabbo
quote:Dear Ian, Calvinism is coming from Augustine. We say Augustine because although others had bits of the same ideas, he it was and he alone who determined to inflict his revelation, i.e. his gathering together of this and that idea and this and that angst and claiming it revelation superior to the teaching of the Church, onto the Church. And in his politically strong position in Rome he achieved this.
Calvini
all of which is great fun, but I really would like to try and understand where Calvinism is coming from. Any chance of that?
Cheers
Ian
quote:And from this screaming misogynist we find debates centuries later deciding that women didn't have souls because they weren't created in the image of God, but were taken from man..
Tertullian (c160-c225), the African Father of the Church, called women "the devil's gateway." His reasoning, based on the story of The Fall in Genesis, is theologically impeccable:
Do you not realize that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships. You are the devil's gateway, you desecrated that fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force. The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child's play to you. You deserved death, and it was the son of God who had to die! [2] http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/womenfathers.html#13
quote:Here we have the other difference because this sees salvation as something achieved by 'faith' in Christ regardless of acts and then has to reject the Way of Christ as 'arbitrary' or 'unjust'; but the Way to Salvation is keeping the commandments, to do good not evil, in which the struggle is eased by faith in Christ - without this first step what sort of kingdom of righteousness would it be?
Originally posted by mdijon:
How can a sane, normal human being choose damnation? Only if they are out of their mind with depravity... or don't understand what they are choosing (eg the sheep "choosing" eternal life by helping the poor - and the goats presumably rejecting it by not doing the same)... which hardly seems fair or just either. Rather like a parent asking their child whether they want to help their younger brother or not, then suddenly revealing that it was a test... and the child who helped gets to watch TV tonight, the one who didn't get's an early night and a smack.
So one can argue that if it is a choice, it's not a very fair one.
The more I think about it, the more universalism appeals. A Calvinist Universalism, that is.
quote:Shrug.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(I just think Dave Marshall does it a whole lot better ....)
Myrrh.
We've got your point. We really have. Several pages and a number of threads ago. Its a variation on "Four legs good - two legs bad". Only replace "two" with Augustine and "four" with, basically, just about anything not balefully influenced by Augustine. Including all of us deluded protestants. We've got it. We see the dangers. We know protestantism is doubly corrupted, fissile and therefore either silly or stupid from your POV. We all have the IQs of Epsilon Minus Semi-Morons and so will be eternally grateful for your correction. That is, if we manage by some mischance to have any eternity to be grateful about.
And all the guys around will tell you that I don't normally post like this either. Please, be a good Shipmate, and give it a rest.
quote:If he meant it as baldly as that, he was wrong. All the UK protestants I know personally give the highest possible value to following Jesus teaching and example when it comes to our behaviour and attitudes. The term "protestant work ethic" is an interesting illustration of the value given in protestantism to both labour and good works. However, given various theological considerations, we also live with certain tensions. These scriptures are just chosen to exemplify.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As one Baptist told me, 'anyone who says works is necessary is from satan'. Makes Christ that according to His quotes I posted above...
Myrrh
quote:and
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
quote:A Calvinist may point to
James 2:14-20
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
quote:and argue, from his POV that, for the elect, works are an inevitable consequence of being a member of the elect. So if there are no works there is no faith. There never was. (Thats just a personal overview from a non-Calvinist).
Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
quote:What stirs me up is when someone like Franknhonest seems to be in despair because he thinks he's committed the unforgiveable sin.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I'd agree with the argument you develop - I think one can describe Christ as being in conflict with the religious leadership of the Jewish nation, and say many of his statements in that light.
Originally posted by Jamac:
Take the time to do this with the synoptic Gospels and you see clearly that Jesus' quarrel was with the generation who rejected his claims....... However, the diatribe against those who see God's messenger as Satanically inspired has clear implications for the whole nation.....What sort of evidence would convince you MDJ?
But there are many levels on which to understand the gospels... there are few statements that can only be read in one way, and I don't feel so comfortable making the leap to the stark statement "Blasphemy against Holy Spirit = a national sin". I could see an argument developed that the context is the pharasees rejection of him... their position as leaders... this offering an example of what is meant.... it's just the starkness and absolute certainty of the original statement I balked at.
I'm also not altogether comfortable with the idea of levelling particular accusations of national sin against the Jewish nation - and citing lack of conversion as evidence - since I think the gospel has more broad implications than that, there are many religious bodies and nations with low conversion rates... and much wickedness has been justified from such arguments in the church before.
quote:Well, this is the problem I'm having here, everyone wants to ignore the base of Calvin's teachings, and this thread is about Calvin, either because they don't know them or knowing them they want to brush aside their origins. He was not wrong to state it like this, the consistent teaching of Calvanists is that good Jews, Muslims, Pagans, secular, do not get into heaven - only open for Christians.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:If he meant it as baldly as that, he was wrong. All the UK protestants I know personally give the highest possible value to following Jesus teaching and example when it comes to our behaviour and attitudes. The term "protestant work ethic" is an interesting illustration of the value given in protestantism to both labour and good works. However, given various theological considerations, we also live with certain tensions. These scriptures are just chosen to exemplify. .......
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As one Baptist told me, 'anyone who says works is necessary is from satan'. Makes Christ that according to His quotes I posted above...
Myrrh
and argue, from his POV that, for the elect, works are an inevitable consequence of being a member of the elect. So if there are no works there is no faith. There never was. (Thats just a personal overview from a non-Calvinist).
quote:
(*)http://stephennewell.wordpress.com/tag/southern-baptist-convention/
When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t … I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.” Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham’s view, only God knows who is going to be saved: “As an evangelist for more than six decades, Mr. Graham has faithfully proclaimed the Bible’s Gospel message that Jesus is the only way to Heaven,” says Graham spokesman A. Larry Ross. “However, salvation is the work of Almighty God, and only he knows what is in each human heart.”
quote:As I'm finding frustrating that no one will engage me in exploring the origin of this doctrine of predestination. I think it best here that I leave this thread, apologies for any irritation I've caused.
After I posted last night, I regretted sending the post. I know I am responsible for my feelings of frustration. The truth is that the overall effect of your very repetitive posts has been to wear my patience a little thin. This does not need to be a matter of any interest to you, but it is a fact. One of things I like about the Ship analogy for these boards is that the term Shipmate. It is a daily reminder that behind the opinions folks express, there are people with lives and feelings. We are not just engaging with disembodied ideas. [/QB]
quote:Not so, Calvin's aim was to prove Augustine right from Scripture.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Myrrh
The section you quoted from "Institutes" shows Calvin "praying in aid" some quotes from Augustine to demonstrate that he is not cut off from all antiquity. The thrust of his argument appears to be that the argument is his own, from scripture, and is not therefore based directly on Augustinian ideas. So from Calvin's own words, he does not claim to owe any anything to Augustine. Its the scripture which convinces him on this matter.
quote:Not my interest either, but that's not what I was arguing here. My argument is that Calvin's doctrine of predestination is false because of its adherence to Augustine's Original Sin doctrine on predestination which is itself false because Augustine's original reasoning was false (and not the teaching of the Church).
This seems more in line with the sort of "first principle - Scripture" approach which seems to characterise many of the Reformers. They often argued that the Fathers were right if scripture (in the Reformers' understanding) confirmed they were right, but not otherwise. I've only just started reading Institutes so this initial impression may be wrong.[quote]
This page might help in sorting that out: http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book1/bk1ch07.html
[quote]I am not sure this general topic is germane to the thread - it looks like "Sola Scriptura" and "Tradition" to me. But given your interest, I'm happy to pursue it by PM or in the Inerrancy Dead Horse. If we open up another thread, I think it will be with the Dead Horses fairly quickly.
quote:Couldn't agreemore. My own enthusiasm for calvinism was largely because is faced up to the reality of the relatively small extent to which we can determine our lives. I have never been convinced by the Arminian doctrine of the freedom of the will. Yes, we have partial freedom, but a lot is determined.
Has anyone thought that Calvin's choosing predestinarianism might be due to him find of his life determined by others.
quote:"Total Depravity" is Augustine through and through, he originated it. Calvin had made a thorough study of Augustine - note how often on that one page he refers to Augustine to prove his ideas were not his own ; there a some nine references to specific writings, (August.) as well as numerous references to him by name. I'll leave you to check out the other chapters..
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My previous post was missing the vital sentence in the link "see Book 2 Chapter 3". ......... I am sticking to my view that this Chapter, which Myrrh first prayed in aid, does not in fact show this aspect of Calvin's thought being derived from Augustinian ideas.
He does indeed say that this aspect of his systematic theology is not new, having been declared by Augustine before. Clearly he knows Augustinian thought. But he derives the doctrine independently of Augustine and only uses Augustine's arguments in support of his considerations of objections and what he sees as falsities. If he agrees with Augustinian arguments, he uses them.
A key discussion about the background to Calvinism might be "why did go to all this trouble since the doctrine was already known?". You then get into the meat of the Reformation. Although obviously enough, much was recognised as true, nowt out of the "old school" could be completely trusted. You had to look at it afresh. Even if that meant a lot of "reinventing the wheel". A mindset like that would go a long way towards explaining the painstaking work of the "Institutes".
So the short version of my view is as follows. Don't blame Augustine for "Total Depravity" in Calvinism; blame Calvin. That is the responsibility he is claiming by the way he writes. It's only a layman's opinion of course. You can read the stuff if you want to.
quote:Why more interesting? It's not as if he was the only one.
Regardless of where Myrrh and I eventually end up on how Augustine came to be embraced in Calvin's thoughts, the more interesting question (and probably much more difficult to answer) is why?
quote:I have to say that so far I've found the NT scriptural evidence on this not overwhelming - and balanced by scriptural evidence to the contrary.
Originally posted by anteater:
As is obvious from this thread, many christians still feel that the evidence for God's total sovereignity in salvation is so strong that it outweighs the obvious moral objections....
quote:Err - anteater? Wasn't Jengie Jon offering psychological explanations in the first of these quotes (with which you couldn't agree more).
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:Couldn't agreemore.
By Jengie Jon: Has anyone thought that Calvin's choosing predestinarianism might be due to him find of his life determined by others.
quote:Why more interesting? It's not as if he was the only one.
By Barnanas: Regardless of where Myrrh and I eventually end up on how Augustine came to be embraced in Calvin's thoughts, the more interesting question (and probably much more difficult to answer) is why?
<snip>
Why not just accept that without trying to find socio- or psycho-logical explanations?
quote:
Can anyone explain to me, or point me to books that will explain, why Calvin formulated his doctrine of predestination? I realize there is a biblical basis for the idea, but most people of his day did not take the idea to the length that he did.
quote:And the consistent teaching is that everyone who is saved is saved in Christ, by grace, through faith. At least some will accept that that group might include people who didn't know they were members of the church.
the consistent teaching of Calvanists is that good Jews, Muslims, Pagans, secular, do not get into heaven - only open for Christians.
quote:Thats been the teaching of the whole church, not just Calvinists.
The consistent teaching of Augustinian's over all the centuries of Christianity in the West is that only Christians are saved, the rest are damned.
quote:Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.
All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.
quote:But that is exactly what many Orthodox say. Some on this very Ship. "We know where the Church is, but we don;t know where it isn't" is almost a cliche from some posters.
When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t …
quote:But we have! The origin of the doctine of predestination is in the authors of the New Testament - particularly the epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, perhaps together with Hebrews; and also in people taking the idea that God is eternal seriously.
As I'm finding frustrating that no one will engage me in exploring the origin of this doctrine of predestination.
quote:And the consistent teaching is that everyone who is saved is saved in Christ, by grace, through faith. At least some will accept that that group might include people who didn't know they were members of the church.
the consistent teaching of Calvanists is that good Jews, Muslims, Pagans, secular, do not get into heaven - only open for Christians.
quote:Thats been the teaching of the whole church, not just Calvinists.
The consistent teaching of Augustinian's over all the centuries of Christianity in the West is that only Christians are saved, the rest are damned.
quote:Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.
All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.
quote:But that is exactly what many Orthodox say. Some on this very Ship. "We know where the Church is, but we don;t know where it isn't" is almost a cliche from some posters.
When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t …
quote:But we have! The origin of the doctine of predestination is in the authors of the New Testament - particularly the epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, perhaps together with Hebrews; and also in people taking the idea that God is eternal seriously.
As I'm finding frustrating that no one will engage me in exploring the origin of this doctrine of predestination.
quote:Perhaps I can answer my own point. Totally depraved doesn't mean that we are 'utterly' or 100% depraved so that there is no good in us. 'Totally' doesn't refer to the depth of depravity, merely the extent of it. Therefore depravity is 'total' in that sin has touched every aspect of a person - body, soul and spirit.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I muddy the waters slightly by saying that Wesleyan Arminians also believe in total depravity. It depends upon what you mean by 'total' however.
quote:I believe that would also be a good summary of Calvin's understanding of total depravity. Not that normal human beings are as morally depraved as they could possibly be, but that there is no part of their human faculties which have not been tainted by the corruption of sin.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Totally depraved doesn't mean that we are 'utterly' or 100% depraved so that there is no good in us. 'Totally' doesn't refer to the depth of depravity, merely the extent of it. Therefore depravity is 'total' in that sin has touched every aspect of a person - body, soul and spirit.
quote:Personally though, I've always thought that the Robert Graves poem "Broken Images" was a really good illustration of Total Depravity (although I have no idea whether or not the author meant it to be):
There was a crooked man and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
and they all lived together in a little crooked house.
quote:I suspect that Calvin might have quibbled with the fifth verse, but would have enthusiastically approved of the poem as a whole.
He is quick, thinking in clear images;
I am slow, thinking in broken images.
He becomes dull, trusting to his clear images;
I become sharp, mistrusting my broken images.
Trusting his images, he assumes their relevance;
Mistrusting my images, I question their relevance.
Assuming their relevance, he assumes the fact;
Questioning their relevances, I question the fact.
When the fact fails him, he questions his senses;
When the facts fails me, I approve my senses.
He continues quick and dull in his clear images;
I continue slow and clear in my broken images.
He, in a new confusion of his understanding;
I, in a new understanding of my confusion.
quote:Hmm, rather a lot of tangents against Orthodox and finally told to sod off... I'll come back to this in a couple of days, but meanwhile, a doctrine is known by its acts and the acts of this doctrine are that non-Christians are told they're damned because of Original Sin and that incapable of doing good as this doctrine holds intrinsic, any good they do is damnable. How total can you get?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But we have! The origin of the doctine of predestination is in the authors of the New Testament - particularly the epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, perhaps together with Hebrews; and also in people taking the idea that God is eternal seriously.
Myrrh
As I'm finding frustrating that no one will engage me in exploring the origin of this doctrine of predestination.
quote:I don't think that (what I think of as) the objectionable features of Limited Atonement are softened by a `correct' understanding of `total depravity'.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He really seemed to be a very kind and gentle man, but we reflected, as we continued the walk, what effect his words might have had on walkers who weren't Christian, or those to whom TULIP was a red rag to a bull!
quote:I'm sorry, this is unfair.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Hmm, rather a lot of tangents against Orthodox and finally told to sod off...
quote:But that is NOT limited to Calvinism. Or even western Christianity. It just isn't. So it cannot be used to show that Calvinism is any different form other mainstream strands of Christianity. They almost ALL tell non-Christians that they are damned. The only large-scale exceptions are the various liberal Protestants (and their even vaguer unitarian offshoots) and some flavours of Calvinism such as Barth's "neo-orthodoxy".
a doctrine is known by its acts and the acts of this doctrine are that non-Christians are told they're damned
quote:No, me neither - which is why I'm not a Calvinist, and I am no advocate of the 5 Points of the Synod of Dort. Even if I could be persuaded of their truth (which I am not), they would still have left so much out of what might be an adequate nutshell portrayal of the Christian gospel, that they reduce the Christian understanding of "grace" to a crude caricature.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I don't think that (what I think of as) the objectionable features of Limited Atonement are softened by a `correct' understanding of `total depravity'.
quote:Is there a problem with that? I only admitting that I come to the Bible with already formed ideas, and in my case, when I was an Atheist, I was also a determinist. I never believed humans have the Arminian idea of free-will. We are constrained by our unconscious, as well as the facts of life.
Err - anteater? Wasn't Jengie Jon offering psychological explanations in the first of these quotes (with which you couldn't agree more).
quote:I think it may well be that you don't understand how calvinists fail to draw the fatalistic conclusion. When, as mentioned above, I was an atheist and determinist, it never lessened my motivation, nor does it for atheists in general, virtually all of whom believe in determinism.
something I don't "get" about the doctrine.
quote:This isn't of much importance but I don't think this is true.
quote:
a doctrine is known by its acts and the acts of this doctrine are that non-Christians are told they're damned
But that is NOT limited to Calvinism. Or even western Christianity. It just isn't. So it cannot be used to show that Calvinism is any different form other mainstream strands of Christianity. They almost ALL tell non-Christians that they are damned. The only large-scale exceptions are the various liberal Protestants (and their even vaguer unitarian offshoots) and some flavours of Calvinism such as Barth's "neo-orthodoxy".
quote:This isn't of much importance but I don't think this is true.
Originally posted by John Spears:
The only large-scale exceptions are the various liberal Protestants (and their even vaguer unitarian offshoots) and some flavours of Calvinism such as Barth's "neo-orthodoxy".
quote:Isn't it better to hold out hope than to hold no hope? In TULIP theology there is no hope for the unevangelised, and through no `fault' of their own (not that `fault' has any real meaning in such a theology).
Originally posted by ken:
Just about everybody "holds out hope" for the unevangelised. (OK, Dante put the Virtuaous Pagans in the 0th circle of Hell with occasional days off for good behaviour) But most say they don't know.
quote:I believe in hell.
Originally posted by ken:
That is a point. No-one seems to really much believe in or preach Hell any more. We're all much more cuddly than that.
quote:I do see the fundamental difference between Arminian and Calvinist theology to be one of the nature of God. Both would say he is "good" - but they would have differing opinions of what "good" meant. For the Arminian - good is exactly what we understand good to be, it seeks the best for others etc, for the Calvinist - 'good' is whatever God deems it to be, and "who are you o piece of clay, to argue with God" - if God deems creating the vast majority of humanity simply to flex his judgement muscles on in hell then that is what "good" is!
"I do think that's an important point. Calvinists believe they it is only their teaching that keeps to the demand for belief in the Gospel. Since Arminian's believe that God has to be basically fair, and since it is obvious to anyone with two eyes that the opportunity to hear the gospel in this life is grossly unfair, they are driven to some second-chance belief.
However, this is only modern arminians, who are probably as much driven by secular views of fairness than by the Bible. (That's not a criticism, BTW). Hudson Taylor certainly did not have a second-chance theology. And he was no calvinist"
quote:Well, here in lies the problem. If I believed in something as awful as everlasting punishment then I would talk about it all the time.
Originally posted by ken:
That is a point. No-one seems to really much believe in or preach Hell any more. We're all much more cuddly than that.
quote:John Wesley was a liberal Protestant?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Them's the "various liberal Protestants" I mentioned!
Originally posted by John Spears:
If you look at Arminians as a whole, they have generally had a solid tradition of hope for the unevangelised.
quote:Interestingly, the only people I know who believe in real, eternal hell are evangelicals.
Originally posted by John Spears:
...I have reached the conclusion that Evangelical type churches either :
a)Don't believe in hell - regardless of what their doctrinal statements say.
b)Don't care that everybody is going there.
c)Don't think through the implications of their theology.
...
quote:You spell out very well one of the apparently logical consequences of Total Depravity - election is arbitrary and human understandings of good, evil, justice are meaningless. But what Mudfrog posted does not necessarily force those conclusions, even though they seem obvious from the language of "Total Depravity". Here is how I'm thinking about it. Using an analogy with criminology, there is a difference between an incorrigible recidivist and a psychopath. The recidivist knows, in some distorted way, and may even care, in some distorted way. He just can't seem to find the way to change, even thought there are times when he may want to. The psychopath certainly does not care, and in some sense may be incapable of knowing. He can't change either, but for different reasons. Mudfrog's description applies much better to recidivism than psychopathology.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
In its most generous interpretation, TULIP says that some will get justice (and condemnation) and some will get mercy, and that there is nothing in any individual that merits mercy over justice. Since there is no good in any of us, the very concepts of `good' and `justice' are rendered meaningless.
quote:The issue is of course that some see some of Augustine's ideas as "bathwater", not "baby".
Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest the Pelagians of our age, I mean the sophists of the Sorbonne, charge us after their wont with being opposed to all antiquity. (my emboldening)
quote:You'd think so, wouldn't you. But the idea of huge swathes of humanity going to hell in their respective handbaskets is more than most people can deal with. The only "rational" reaction would be to race from door to door trying to convince people of the error of their ways. But people can't live like that - so they have to develop a coping strategy.
Originally posted by John Spears:
Well, here in lies the problem. If I believed in something as awful as everlasting punishment then I would talk about it all the time.
quote:Whatever gave you that idea?
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
In TULIP theology there is no hope for the unevangelised, and through no `fault' of their own
quote:I assume you're taking the p. There's a good thread in Hell for anyone wanting to wind up TULIP fanciers.
If God chooses to save those who don't know they are saved, who maybe don't think of themselves as part of the Chuirch, who maybe haven't even heard of Jesus, who are we to complain?
quote:But if grace is irresistable, who receives it?
Originally posted by mdijon:
How can a sane, normal human being choose damnation? Only if they are out of their mind with depravity... or don't understand what they are choosing (eg the sheep "choosing" eternal life by helping the poor - and the goats presumably rejecting it by not doing the same)... which hardly seems fair or just either. Rather like a parent asking their child whether they want to help their younger brother or not, then suddenly revealing that it was a test... and the child who helped gets to watch TV tonight, the one who didn't get's an early night and a smack.
quote:Except, (1) and (3) are really just variations of “Monergism,” which is a better term than “Calvinism” to refer to the idea of “Irresistable grace for x number of people.” In that case,
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
1. Reject ‘works' fully, and embrace 5-point Calvinism and all that it entails
2. Accept that Pelagius had it right all along, at least in some degree -- works, or at least human cooperation, in some form, is a prerequisite to human salvation
3. Embrace full-blown universalism
quote:We are just as unclear about what God’s justice really is as we are about his love. What seems fairly clear to most, however, is that if God truly cares for his creation, arbitrary salvation is cruel to the unsaved. In response to m.t-tomb’s question, “If God chose to save but one sinner from the mass of sinful humanity would it still be a gracious act?” my answer is, “It depends on who you ask—the one guy who got saved or one of the billions of damned.”
Originally posted by m.t-tomb: The problem with this view however is that you'll say God is immoral for not adopting everyone. Calvinists on the other hand think that God allows his love to compromise his justice by adopting even one undeserving sinner.
quote:If no one deserves it, then “unconditional” means that no one gets it, or everyone gets it. Otherwise, the people that get it do so based on a condition.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
But the belief with which one believes belongs to Christ and is dispensed by God unconditionally and upon no basis of merit. No-one deserves to have faith.
quote:Limited salvation can only be honorable if it is based on limited ability. (The man who saves 5 out of 10 people from drowning in the flood is a hero because it is believed that he was unable to save any more than he did. If it was determined that the man could have saved all 10, but chose not to for no understandable reason, he would get far less praise for his actions, if any.)
The real scandal is that God saves any, not that he saves some.
quote:Or Monergism where x = all. That’s where I am, too, mdijon.
Originally posted by mdijon:
The more I think about it, the more universalism appeals. A Calvinist Universalism, that is.
quote:Of course it is, but I did really think that. I was about to launch into an explanation of why that was a total distortion of the Reformed position when I read it again and thought . . this is a windup. Maybe it's not.
I'm missing the piss taking... isn't that a pov?
quote:as if the Reformed view is any different.
The Arminian/Wesleyan view requires real saving faith, actual belief in Christ.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by anteater:
I assume you're taking the p.
quote:Not a distortion. I'm trying to point out (among other things) that EXACTLY THE SAME moral problems arise in both systems.
Originally posted by anteater:
It is definitely a distortion to say:
quote:as if the Reformed view is any different.
The Arminian/Wesleyan view requires real saving faith, actual belief in Christ.
quote:Huh?
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Resistable grace does not seem to be consistent with any concept of God.
quote:Second-guessing God isn't necessarily negative. After all, sometimes you find out that it wasn't God you were second-guessing anyway.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's well argued professor - and I wouldn't expect any different - but it still looks like second-guessing God to me.
quote:In the end, that's exactly what I have to say. It's probably what most of us say. But when pressed, we have a belief that we tend towards. For me, inclusive monergism is the only one that really makes sense.
What's wrong with "leave judgment to God and trust Him"? That really does seem both scriptural and obedient to me.
quote:I mean that nobody thinks of God as merely "alright." Most theists think of God as the best of all things. Given a completely free choice, it's not likely that someone would reject the best of all things. We reject things because there is something better we want--or we at least perceive something to be better. But if God truly IS the best, like most people believe, then anyone who even perceives something to be better than God would not be making an informed choice and thus, would cease to be free.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Huh?
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Resistable grace does not seem to be consistent with any concept of God.
It clearly is consistant with some people's view of God, just as a lack of omnipotence is consistant with a process view of God.
What on earth do you mean?
quote:The difficulty is that neither is irresistable grace.
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Resistable grace does not seem to be consistent with any concept of God.
quote:Nothing else makes much sense to me either, problematic as it is in other respects.
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:Or Monergism where x = all. That’s where I am, too, mdijon.
Originally posted by mdijon:
The more I think about it, the more universalism appeals. A Calvinist Universalism, that is.
[/QB]
quote:In case anyone's interested this is from The Pilgrim's Regress, and the context was that evil, left to itself, gets worse ad infinitum, and therefore creating a "worst thing" is an act of mercy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's well argued professor - and I wouldn't expect any different - but it still looks like second-guessing God to me. Vaguely remember a quote from a C S Lewis book which goes something like this
"God in his mercy made
the fixed pains of Hell"
quote:Yes. Sometime difficult things are difficult because they're wrong... In this case, Regress was one of the first things Lewis wrote after his conversion. I'm not sure if he revised this view, but I'm sure he didn't stop thinking about it there, and I don't think we should either!
Hateful isn't it? Would love to rule that out.
quote:Getting a little personal anteater. Take it to Hell.
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:I assume you're taking the p. There's a good thread in Hell for anyone wanting to wind up TULIP fanciers.
If God chooses to save those who don't know they are saved, who maybe don't think of themselves as part of the Chuirch, who maybe haven't even heard of Jesus, who are we to complain?
quote:I'm not sure about that. IMHO grace appeared in Genesis 3 v 15 and 22.
Originally posted by Astro:
The reason that I think that God's grace must be resistable is that Adam and Eve resisted it.
quote:Most Calvinists, so far as I know, do indeed disavow supralapsarianism, when they think about the matter at all. But, in fact, I think most Reformed-type churches try to avoid getting drawn into a discussion of this matter, because it just causes division and doesn't get them anywhere.
Originally posted by Astro:
I know that most Calvinists think that Superlapsianism (that God created some people to damned) is a heresay but I find Adam and Eve's ability to resist God at odds with Irresistable grace.
quote:Just to pick up on that one particular point, either way it's not my decision or therefore my responsibility to be fundamentally 'bad'/ totally depraved, so where's the justice (of God) in punishing me for that?
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
we are all fundamentally `bad' (whether it be by God's decision or Adam's).
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but there's no morality attached to the action of putting a wardrobe on the bonfire; I however am a moral being, as is God, and I fail to see the justice and correctness in Him punishing me for something I haven't actually done.
In short, I'd like to think I'm worth a bit more than a wardrobe!
quote:Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
quote:Did he make the disease?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:But there'd be something warped if my mother and father then broke the bones of all my children because I walked on the balcony, and held them responsible for the fractures.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Did he make the disease?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A better analogy is illness. It's no-one's fault and the doctor has the procedure to deal with it. If you refuse that procedure or seek an alternative that is just quack medicine, it's not the doctor's fault you die.
If your mother and father told you not to walk on the balcony and then, after you fell off, you blamed them for breaking the bones, would that be fair? I think not.
quote:But you missed the major points of Mouse's post.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Did he make the disease?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
If your mother and father told you not to walk on the balcony and then, after you fell off, you blamed them for breaking the bones, would that be fair? I think not.
quote:That, for me, sums up the rather dour Presbyterian Scots and Irish Calvinists -
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Sorry to be missing this thread
I do read it though... and occasionally mutter my disapproval.
quote:I think you're taking the analogy too far.
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:But you missed the major points of Mouse's post.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Did he make the disease?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Except the doctor made both me and the disease, and put me in a world where there are a zillion people hawking remedies and no way of knowing for sure which is the one that will work.
If your mother and father told you not to walk on the balcony and then, after you fell off, you blamed them for breaking the bones, would that be fair? I think not.
No, you can't blame your parents for breaking your bones, but none of us would think too highly of the parents who, in that situation, said "I told you not to walk on the balcony, hell if I'm helping you now." Even if a prideful child 'resisted' the help of the parents.
A doctor who treats his own son might not treat the son's 'rejection' of treatment with such apathy, either. The notion that perhaps the human doctor might be wrong about which treatment to prescribe is what makes the human version of this analogy weak. But in a situation where the doctor knows beyond any doubt the perfect treatment for the child's disease, most of us would assume that the doctor would chase after the child and attempt to convince him... forever if necessary.
The argument from there is whether or not any will eternally resist the offer of love and healing from the perfect doctor, so to speak.
Calvinism says that some were destined to eternally resist because, as m.t-tomb has explained, they are never given a completely free choice. Arminism typically suggests that some will eternally resist due to the stubbornnes of their will.
I don't find either position to be defensible.
quote:Because you are trying to make the analogy fit every last detail. An analogy is useful for illustrating one or two points, but it usually falls down when you push it too far.
Originally posted by professor kirke:
(Do I really have to ask this?)
How so?
quote:That's not `loving the world' in any meaningful sense; at best it is loving certain people. At worst it is a cruel trick played against everybody, because we most likely will know and love people who are not so `called'.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The way God loved the world was, and still is, to call certain people to himself. That's how he does it; that's how God loves the world.
quote:Not at all. It's just that I have taken up the opporuntiy, when offered, to hear the gospel and accept Christ. It is so not the case that God loves me because he knew that i would believe.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The way God loved the world was, and still is, to call certain people to himself. That's how he does it; that's how God loves the world.
I ask you: why is it that you believe and your neighbour does not? Is it because you have done something more righteous than they have?
quote:So, you're saying that your response to the offer of the gospel is what makes you Christian. Presumably, you condider a positive response to the gospel to be in some sense more righteous that the refusal to accept it.
Not at all. It's just that I have taken up the opporuntiy, when offered, to hear the gospel and accept Christ.
quote:My acceptance of the gospel is not what makes me a Christian. The grace of God and the cleansing blood of Jesus makes me a Christian. My response is simply to accept it. The acceptance doesn't make the grace efficacious, it just 'accepts' it. It's a passive thing.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Popsted by Mudfrog:quote:So, you're saying that your response to the offer of the gospel is what makes you Christian. Presumably, you condider a positive response to the gospel to be in some sense more righteous that the refusal to accept it.
Not at all. It's just that I have taken up the opporuntiy, when offered, to hear the gospel and accept Christ.
I fail to see how such an understanding of the gospel doesn't lead you to the conclusion that you became a Christian because you did the right thing&trade and that your unbelieving neighbour did the wrong thing&trade with respect to Jesus.
What differentiates you from your neighbour is the righteousness of your free choice not the grace of God to believe. You really did do something to get in on salvation that your neighbour hasn't done. According to your view the fact that you neighbour isn't a Christian is their own silly fault. This is just nonsense.
quote:So, the exercise of faith isn't righteous, just appropriate. Verses please. Likewise, unbelief isn't unrighteous, merely inappropriate. Again, verses please.
My accepting the gospel is not a righteous act, it is simply the apporopriate response to the gift of grace.
quote:For appropriate, also read correct response, desired response.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said:quote:So, the exercise of faith isn't righteous, just appropriate. Verses please. Likewise, unbelief isn't unrighteous, merely inappropriate. Again, verses please.
My accepting the gospel is not a righteous act, it is simply the apporopriate response to the gift of grace.
ISTM, that this appropriate/inapproriate notion is a completely new notion. I can't think of anywhere in Scripture where the sin of unbelief is described as merely inappropriate rather than unrighteous.
quote:Actually, I think I agree with this, but probably not in the same way that most Calvinists would agree with it.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The way God loved the world was, and still is, to call certain people to himself. That's how he does it; that's how God loves the world.
quote:This choosing of Israel was, sometimes, at great detriment to the people around. Joshua's campaigns had their casualties.
Originally posted by humblebum:
I've found it very helpful to understand the doctrine of election in terms of its Old Testament background, and asking what God has chosen us for. God loved the whole world by choosing Israel to be a light to the nations. The point of their election was for the benefit of the whole world, not just for Israel.
quote:Normally used by you you mean? I could level the same objection at you. I could say that you don't understand the terms of which you speak. You have to deal with Calvinism by understanding its terms before you critique them.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
m-t.tomb:
You answered Mudfrog, could you try to answer me?
In what sense does saving some and damning others amount to `loving the world'? How does this notion of `love' fit with anything we mortals recognize as love?
It increasingly seems to me that folk with Calvinist leanings avoid the moral and philosophical problems in their theology by finding highly technical and unconventional uses of words that appear in Scripture.
For example, in the preceding posts I have seen words like `love', `good', `justice', `grace', and `deserves' used in senses that have little or no relationship with how these words are normally used.
quote:I agree with this.
Originally posted by humblebum:
quote:Actually, I think I agree with this, but probably not in the same way that most Calvinists would agree with it.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
The way God loved the world was, and still is, to call certain people to himself. That's how he does it; that's how God loves the world.
I've found it very helpful to understand the doctrine of election in terms of its Old Testament background, and asking what God has chosen us for. God loved the whole world by choosing Israel to be a light to the nations. The point of their election was for the benefit of the whole world, not just for Israel.
In the same way, the church has been chosen and called to a specific role within God's redemptive plans for the whole world. The church is called to be a light to the nations, and therefore exists for the benefit of the whole world, not just itself.
So yes, God does love the world by calling certain people to himself.
quote:Hurrah!
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I agree with this.
quote:I fail to see how having 'made the correct response' doesn't translate into 'I made myself into a Christian and they didn't'. So help me out; why doesn't your neighbour believe in God? Is it because you made a better, more appropriate, more 'righteous' decision that they did?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:For appropriate, also read correct response, desired response.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said:quote:So, the exercise of faith isn't righteous, just appropriate. Verses please. Likewise, unbelief isn't unrighteous, merely inappropriate. Again, verses please.
My accepting the gospel is not a righteous act, it is simply the apporopriate response to the gift of grace.
ISTM, that this appropriate/inapproriate notion is a completely new notion. I can't think of anywhere in Scripture where the sin of unbelief is described as merely inappropriate rather than unrighteous.
If God is calling people to repent, then repentance is the appropriate response.
The Philippian jailor asked, 'what should I do to be saved?' and the answer, shwoing what the appropriate response was to be, was 'believe on the LJC and you shall be saved.
Jesus called to Zacchaeus 'Come down'.
The appropriate respnse was for Zacchaeus to come down.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks, the appropritae response to the hearing of his voice, (the responce he calls for) is to open the door.
quote:No, I made a decision - one that is available to them - and they didn't make a decision. I responded, they didn't (yet).
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:I fail to see how having 'made the correct response' doesn't translate into 'I made myself into a Christian and they didn't'. So help me out; why doesn't your neighbour believe in God? Is it because you made a better, more appropriate, more 'righteous' decision that they did?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:For appropriate, also read correct response, desired response.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said:quote:So, the exercise of faith isn't righteous, just appropriate. Verses please. Likewise, unbelief isn't unrighteous, merely inappropriate. Again, verses please.
My accepting the gospel is not a righteous act, it is simply the apporopriate response to the gift of grace.
ISTM, that this appropriate/inapproriate notion is a completely new notion. I can't think of anywhere in Scripture where the sin of unbelief is described as merely inappropriate rather than unrighteous.
If God is calling people to repent, then repentance is the appropriate response.
The Philippian jailor asked, 'what should I do to be saved?' and the answer, shwoing what the appropriate response was to be, was 'believe on the LJC and you shall be saved.
Jesus called to Zacchaeus 'Come down'.
The appropriate respnse was for Zacchaeus to come down.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks, the appropritae response to the hearing of his voice, (the responce he calls for) is to open the door.
quote:And I don't understand why you can't see it.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I fail to see how having 'made the correct response' doesn't translate into 'I made myself into a Christian and they didn't'.
quote:Are you suggesting that I don't understand English, or that I don't understand Calvinist terms of art? I'll certainly put my hand up to the latter.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I once worked with a Slovac who was leanring English. He would often argue that English grammar didn't make sense. The only answer I could give went a bit like this, 'That's the way it is.'. My suggestion is that you learn the language before you critique the theology.
quote:I think the point m.t is making, well but doubtless unintentionally, is that if he described his theology using everyday meanings of words, it would be rejected out of hand.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What the Hell am I missing here?
quote:While my initial impression was the same as yours, I find it hard to believe that a reasonable, intelligent, and well-educated person would allow himself to be deceived into worshipping a monster by semantic tricks.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I think the point m.t is making, well but doubtless unintentionally, is that if he described his theology using everyday meanings of words, it would be rejected out of hand.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What the Hell am I missing here?
Although I think Christianity in general has a bit a tendency to rely on special meanings for ordinary words, the God he's actually decribing, as has been noted before, is a diabolical monster. If he didn't assume 'alternative' meanings, he'd be unable to even claim it referred to the Christian God, let alone the God that might conceivably be creator and sustainer of the universe.
quote:10 for 10 for accuracy.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think the point m.t is making, well but doubtless unintentionally, is that if he described his theology using everyday meanings of words, it would be rejected out of hand.
quote:So what did make you a Christian then? What affected the 'transfer of realms' for you? Was it your response or was it something God did prior to your response?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And I don't understand why you can't see it.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I fail to see how having 'made the correct response' doesn't translate into 'I made myself into a Christian and they didn't'.
So why does responding to the gift of grace mean I made myself a Christian? Can someone else help me out here?
quote:You're straying dangerously close to a hell call, Dave. If i didn't find the idea of Dave Marshall telling a Calvinist about the nature of God so hilarious I'd be busy typing an OP.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I think the point m.t is making, well but doubtless unintentionally, is that if he described his theology using everyday meanings of words, it would be rejected out of hand.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What the Hell am I missing here?
Although I think Christianity in general has a bit a tendency to rely on special meanings for ordinary words, the God he's actually decribing, as has been noted before, is a diabolical monster. If he didn't assume 'alternative' meanings, he'd be unable to even claim it referred to the Christian God, let alone the God that might conceivably be creator and sustainer of the universe.
quote:
Yes, access to God is through this Person, but we do not have to know His name. Jesus' claims of exclucivisity are correct; He and He alone is the reconciler between God and Man. But it is a far cry from that to saying that anyone who doesn't 'become a Christian' and sign on the correct dotted line is doomed to Hell. It is our attitude to the Light, to Grace and Truth, to Right and Wrong that matters. This is not salvation by works; it is not by doing the right things that God accepts us, but rather by our attitude - do we turn away from, or receive, the Light?
quote:*sigh* I thought we discussed prevenient grace about 3 months ago further up the thread.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:So what did make you a Christian then? What affected the 'transfer of realms' for you? Was it your response or was it something God did prior to your response?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And I don't understand why you can't see it.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I fail to see how having 'made the correct response' doesn't translate into 'I made myself into a Christian and they didn't'.
So why does responding to the gift of grace mean I made myself a Christian? Can someone else help me out here?
I object to the idea that the correct response is what differentiates teh Christian from the non-Christian: it still smacks of Gucci works to me.
quote:Why a Hell call? Methinks Dave is making a perfectly valid and allowable critique of the weaknesses of your argument.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:You're straying dangerously close to a hell call, Dave. If i didn't find the idea of Dave Marshall telling a Calvinist about the nature of God so hilarious I'd be busy typing an OP.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I think the point m.t is making, well but doubtless unintentionally, is that if he described his theology using everyday meanings of words, it would be rejected out of hand.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What the Hell am I missing here?
Although I think Christianity in general has a bit a tendency to rely on special meanings for ordinary words, the God he's actually decribing, as has been noted before, is a diabolical monster. If he didn't assume 'alternative' meanings, he'd be unable to even claim it referred to the Christian God, let alone the God that might conceivably be creator and sustainer of the universe.
quote:Both for me. My salvation, a gift from God, would be utterly impossible without God and the saving work of Jesus life, death and resurrection. But, like all gifts it had to be received by me; I could have rejected it.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Was it your response or was it something God did prior to your response?
quote:Dead people don't respond. They need to be raised first. Then they respond. Yes, we respond, I take no issue with the need for response. What I take issue with is the idea that the response affects the new birth. No. The new birth happens so that we can respond. Gah!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
IT WAS BOTH. God's offer, my response. Synergy. If God didn't offer I would have nothing to respond to. If I didn't accept, he wouldn't force the issue.
quote:Beause he creates people with the express intent of damning them to eternal torment, with absolutely nothing they can do about it. How can you not find that monstrous?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I'm really not sure why you find the God that I've described in my posts on this thread to be so monstrous.
quote:As a Calvinist, I must say I have no problem with this theology (in terms of it being preached etc), even though I'm not sure it is exactly accurate.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So why does responding to the gift of grace mean I made myself a Christian? Can someone else help me out here?
quote:So now, not only are you the repository of all knowledge regarding saving grace, we are all intellectually lazy and theologically intransigent, using second-hand objections and pop-theology!
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I'm pretty certain (and know from experience) that what generally comes back is an ill conceived hotch-potch of second hand objections and pop-theology. I am quite certain that the problem lies in your intellectual laziness and theological intransigence, rather than me worshipping an evil contruct of a diseased mind.
quote:As has been said you take the "dead" metaphor far too literally. The entire Old Testament shows that people can do good before Christ came, and therefore the "fall" was not as total and complete as it has to be for your reading of the "dead" thing to work.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Dead people don't respond. They need to be raised first. Then they respond. Yes, we respond, I take no issue with the need for response. What I take issue with is the idea that the response affects the new birth. No. The new birth happens so that we can respond. Gah!
quote:Was I?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:As a Calvinist, I must say I have no problem with this theology (in terms of it being preached etc), even though I'm not sure it is exactly accurate.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So why does responding to the gift of grace mean I made myself a Christian? Can someone else help me out here?
Where it becomes dangerous is where, as a few pages ago, Matt was saying basically that those who accept the gift deserve it more, for the very virtue of the fact they accepted it. That I cannot stomach.
quote:Question. When did Lazarus hear Jesus' voice?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Dead people don't respond. They need to be raised first. Then they respond. Yes, we respond, I take no issue with the need for response. What I take issue with is the idea that the response affects the new birth. No. The new birth happens so that we can respond. Gah!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
IT WAS BOTH. God's offer, my response. Synergy. If God didn't offer I would have nothing to respond to. If I didn't accept, he wouldn't force the issue.
quote:Because you use the word 'creates' flabbiliy, that's why. You paint a picture of God as some kind a sadistic Gepeto 'making' each and every himan being ex nilhilo. This is nonsense. I've never said anything about 'express intent': you said that. I've never said anything about 'damning' anyone either: you inferred it. I've not said anything about anyone not being able to anything about it either. Again, you said that. Yes, I find your presentation of my God monstrous. That's why i thank him that your ignorance of his character doesn't change the reality of my belief.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Beause he creates people with the express intent of damning them to eternal torment, with absolutely nothing they can do about it. How can you not find that monstrous?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I'm really not sure why you find the God that I've described in my posts on this thread to be so monstrous.
quote:Well, I wouldn't agree with that. No one deserves anything TBH. We all respond through grace, not merit.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:As a Calvinist, I must say I have no problem with this theology (in terms of it being preached etc), even though I'm not sure it is exactly accurate.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So why does responding to the gift of grace mean I made myself a Christian? Can someone else help me out here?
Where it becomes dangerous is where, as a few pages ago, Matt was saying basically that those who accept the gift deserve it more, for the very virtue of the fact they accepted it. That I cannot stomach.
quote:No, No, No.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Dead people don't respond. They need to be raised first. Then they respond. Yes, we respond, I take no issue with the need for response. What I take issue with is the idea that the response affects the new birth. No. The new birth happens so that we can respond. Gah!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
IT WAS BOTH. God's offer, my response. Synergy. If God didn't offer I would have nothing to respond to. If I didn't accept, he wouldn't force the issue.
quote:Who are you to say that the metaphor has been taken too far? Am I duty bound to agree that I extended unnaturally just because you say so? The passage fits my reading more naturally than yours.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:As has been said you take the "dead" metaphor far too literally. The entire Old Testament shows that people can do good before Christ came, and therefore the "fall" was not as total and complete as it has to be for your reading of the "dead" thing to work.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Dead people don't respond. They need to be raised first. Then they respond. Yes, we respond, I take no issue with the need for response. What I take issue with is the idea that the response affects the new birth. No. The new birth happens so that we can respond. Gah!
quote:But that takes us back to the point I made about 100 years ago about the 'justice' of imputed damnation; who is responsible for my 'total depravity'?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Because you use the word 'creates' flabbiliy, that's why. You paint a picture of God as some kind a sadistic Gepeto 'making' each and every himan being ex nilhilo. This is nonsense. I've never said anything about 'express intent': you said that. I've never said anything about 'damning' anyone either: you inferred it.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Beause he creates people with the express intent of damning them to eternal torment, with absolutely nothing they can do about it. How can you not find that monstrous?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I'm really not sure why you find the God that I've described in my posts on this thread to be so monstrous.
quote:For the love of God man! The jailer would not have asked such a question if God had not inspired his heart to do so! God was at work in his heart before he uttered a word. The desire for Christ is the work of Christ. No Christ; no desire for Christ. It is not of our doing so that no-one may boast.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:No, No, No.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Dead people don't respond. They need to be raised first. Then they respond. Yes, we respond, I take no issue with the need for response. What I take issue with is the idea that the response affects the new birth. No. The new birth happens so that we can respond. Gah!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
IT WAS BOTH. God's offer, my response. Synergy. If God didn't offer I would have nothing to respond to. If I didn't accept, he wouldn't force the issue.
The Philippian jailor asked 'what must I do to be saved?'
The answer was "believe on the LJC and you will be saved".
The belief preceded the salvation.
It was not, "Be saved and then you will believe".
quote:I am a disputant in this debate. Am I not to be allowed to state my opinions now?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Who are you to say that the metaphor has been taken too far?
quote:Eh? By all means type away, if you're running short of other excuses for avoiding giving people straight answers. Don't expect me to help you out though.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
You're straying dangerously close to a hell call, Dave. If i didn't find the idea of Dave Marshall telling a Calvinist about the nature of God so hilarious I'd be busy typing an OP.
quote:Adam. And like it or not you were in him at some point. But the question isn't about responsibility in the first instance, it's about reality. It's an explanation for what is; not a justification for a charge.
[b]But that takes us back to the point I made about 100 years ago about the 'justice' of imputed damnation; who is responsible for my 'total depravity'? [/QB]
quote:So why wasn't the answer "The fact that you even ask this question proves you are already saved"? Why was he told to DO something? You're reading your theology into this verse. Nice eisegesis. Pity your theology is so wrong.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
For the love of God man! The jailer would not have asked such a question if God had not inspired his heart to do so! God was at work in his heart before he uttered a word.
quote:I have not claimed that they can't do good. What I do assert is that those good things do not in any way earn them salvation. This is mainstream protestant thought; it's not Calninistic per se.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I am a disputant in this debate. Am I not to be allowed to state my opinions now?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Who are you to say that the metaphor has been taken too far?
How are O.T. people able to do good before Christ came? Answer that and maybe we can figure out this particular point. It's no good complaining I don't understand you if you won't try to explain yourself.
quote:Acts 13.48 and 16.14 is all I need to say.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:So why wasn't the answer "The fact that you even ask this question proves you are already saved"? Why was he told to DO something? You're reading your theology into this verse. Nice eisegesis. Pity your theology is so wrong.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
For the love of God man! The jailer would not have asked such a question if God had not inspired his heart to do so! God was at work in his heart before he uttered a word.
quote:It is a question about responsibility, because justice is about responsibility and if, as i believe, justice is one of God's attributes, it's also about the nature of God. So I ask again: how is it just that I be punished for something someone else (Adam) did?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Matt Black asked:quote:Adam. And like it or not you were in him at some point. But the question isn't about responsibility in the first instance, it's about reality. It's an explanation for what is; not a justification for a charge. [/QB]
[b]But that takes us back to the point I made about 100 years ago about the 'justice' of imputed damnation; who is responsible for my 'total depravity'?
quote:So Luke was a contemporary of Luther and Calvin?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Of course we have an impasse because part of Acts supports your view and part supports mine. That's why we need Tradition to help us rightly divide the word of truth. You have your tradition (Luther, Calvin, etc.); I have mine (the original Christians and their immediate followers). Never the twain.
You admitted it yourself, Luke - the companion of Paul - was not averse to what can be descibed as Calvinism.
quote:I almost missed this. What is Kali? And why do you think I would defend worshipping it?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Telling me that I worship a monster and that love an evil God is offensive, particularly when it comes from someone who is otherwise perfectly happy to condone the worship of an elephant God. Would you be prepared to defend the worship of Kali Dave? I bet you would. And yet Kali is 10 times the monster than the God I supposedly worship.
quote:Luke cannot be used to determine what bits of Luke to take as normative and what bits to explain away. No wonder this is so hard for you.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:So Luke was a contemporary of Luther and Calvin?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Of course we have an impasse because part of Acts supports your view and part supports mine. That's why we need Tradition to help us rightly divide the word of truth. You have your tradition (Luther, Calvin, etc.); I have mine (the original Christians and their immediate followers). Never the twain.
quote:No, you are responsible for what you do. It's a bit like this I think: my grandfather was an alcoholic and my own father has a propensity toward alcohol abuse. I may well have the same propensity. However, if I got shit-faced and smaked my wife about I would be responsible for my actions, not my grandfather. It's the same with sin; we inherit the weakness but we are still responsible for the action despite that weakness.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:It is a question about responsibility, because justice is about responsibility and if, as i believe, justice is one of God's attributes, it's also about the nature of God. So I ask again: how is it just that I be punished for something someone else (Adam) did?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Matt Black asked:quote:Adam. And like it or not you were in him at some point. But the question isn't about responsibility in the first instance, it's about reality. It's an explanation for what is; not a justification for a charge.
But that takes us back to the point I made about 100 years ago about the 'justice' of imputed damnation; who is responsible for my 'total depravity'?
quote:Look in a mirror and say that!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Luke cannot be used to determine what bits of Luke to take as normative and what bits to explain away. No wonder this is so hard for you.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:So Luke was a contemporary of Luther and Calvin?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Of course we have an impasse because part of Acts supports your view and part supports mine. That's why we need Tradition to help us rightly divide the word of truth. You have your tradition (Luther, Calvin, etc.); I have mine (the original Christians and their immediate followers). Never the twain.
quote:Fair enough. But in order to use the word `loving' of God in any useful sense, there has to be some analogy between human love and Divine love. It may not be a perfect analogy or even an accurate analogy, but it must be some sort an analogy. If not, we might as well say ``God is thrungeburble''.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
A theologian would immediately point out that this is wrong, because the way God is related to the property "loving" is different from the way a human is. So we never can talk directly of God. This is not to say we cannot say positive things about God, but as our language is a product of our earthly experience it is in the end inadequate for talking about God.
quote:Beautiful dodge. Can't answer the substantive point?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Look in a mirror and say that!
quote:Salvation is more than a magic bullet and sin is more than a disease. Thus, in the same way that my analogy is flawed so is your extension of it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
O...kay, but if someone then came along and said that they had a pill which could cure your propensity to alcoholism, that the pill was free, but they had decided not to give it to you, would you consider that just and reasonable?
[reply to your previous post]
quote:I'm really not sure what the substantive point is! I think you're suggesting that the theology I am espousing ia an extra-biblical innovation that would have been alien to the original writers and the early church.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Beautiful dodge. Can't answer the substantive point?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Look in a mirror and say that!
quote:No, my point is that the scriptures are inconsistent on this point, and in order to determine which verses to take literally and which to take metaphorically or explain away, you need some extra-scriptural guideline(s). You have yours, from Augustine and Calvin and Luther, and I have mine, from Chrysostom and Basil the Great et al. What you can't claim is that your beliefs are founded on scripture and mine are not. We both have scriptures behind us, and we both have scriptures against us. That's not the point.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I'm really not sure what the substantive point is! I think you're suggesting that the theology I am espousing ia an extra-biblical innovation that would have been alien to the original writers and the early church.
quote:Ok. In your thinking, then, why do some people respond and some not? Is this a moral difference between them?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, I wouldn't agree with that. No one deserves anything TBH. We all respond through grace, not merit.
quote:And I say it's because you don't fully understand my view of God that you find it so monstrous.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It's because your view of God makes him out to be a monster that I think it's wrong. I never said anything about your salvation.
quote:The tension in the New Testament is real. It was written by people who disagreed with one another as to how they should preach the Good News. Chucking half of it out because Chrysostom or anyone else said so is to deface it. In the grace and mercy of God we have four gospels but one Gospel.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
my point is that the scriptures are inconsistent on this point, and in order to determine which verses to take literally and which to take metaphorically or explain away, you need some extra-scriptural guideline(s).
quote:Good thing nobody has suggested doing that, then, isn't it?
Originally posted by ken:
The tension in the New Testament is real. It was written by people who disagreed with one another as to how they should preach the Good News. Chucking half of it out because Chrysostom or anyone else said so is to deface it.
quote:So here's the rub.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
For the love of God man! The jailer would not have asked such a question if God had not inspired his heart to do so! God was at work in his heart before he uttered a word. The desire for Christ is the work of Christ. No Christ; no desire for Christ. It is not of our doing so that no-one may boast.
quote:No, it's choice.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Ok. In your thinking, then, why do some people respond and some not? Is this a moral difference between them?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, I wouldn't agree with that. No one deserves anything TBH. We all respond through grace, not merit.
quote:Yes, but WHY if God's grace is so wonderful, as we know it is, do some people reject it? What makes the difference that some choose and some do not?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:No, it's choice.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Ok. In your thinking, then, why do some people respond and some not? Is this a moral difference between them?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, I wouldn't agree with that. No one deserves anything TBH. We all respond through grace, not merit.
quote:I can't give all the answers as to why people rject the Gospel - so many reasons - but I do know it is not because they can not choose to accept it because they are not among the elect.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Yes, but WHY if God's grace is so wonderful, as we know it is, do some people reject it? What makes the difference that some choose and some do not?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:No, it's choice.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Ok. In your thinking, then, why do some people respond and some not? Is this a moral difference between them?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, I wouldn't agree with that. No one deserves anything TBH. We all respond through grace, not merit.
quote:Perhaps you should ask someone who has rejected it? Otherwise, it is speculation.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Yes, but WHY if God's grace is so wonderful, as we know it is, do some people reject it?
quote:Morality is embodied in making choices. Unless you're suggesting that chosing or rejecting God is morally neutral, I'm afraid you're sidestepping the question.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:No, it's choice.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
<snip>
Ok. In your thinking, then, why do some people respond and some not? Is this a moral difference between them?
quote:It's a common failing of Christians to assume that God is somehow 'obvious' and therefore anyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto morally culpable. No one who "rejects Gods grace" would put it in those terms - they would reject your entire question and the axioms on which it stands.
sharkshooter wrote:
Perhaps you should ask someone who has rejected it? Otherwise, it is speculation.
quote:And how do you know this? Because the idea doesn't feel nice?
I can't give all the answers as to why people reject the Gospel - so many reasons - but I do know it is not because they can not choose to accept it because they are not among the elect.
quote:That is correct. You say humanity has the last word, I say God has the first. This is the difference between us. We both agree that regeneration happens and that regeneration is essential. What we disagree about is essential nature of the ordo salutis.
You think people are regenerated in order to believe.
I think people believe in order to be regenerated.
quote:So why not accept that these differences come about, not because one viewpoint is correct and the other incorrect, but because there are very real and substantial inconsistencies in the character of God as revealed in Scripture? On the one hand you have talk of God as loving, merciful, and inclusive; on the other you have talk of a judgemental, intolerant God, who orders Hell and damnation and gnashing of teeth.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I maintain that your view cannot avoid the accusation of Gucci works. You maintain that my view cannot avoid the accusation of divine puppetry.
You maintain the free will is restored by grace but that Christ is a take it or leave it offer to a person with free will.
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
The issue is the beauty of Christ. You say that a free person can choose to reject him. I say that a truly free person simply wouldn't.
quote:As believers in total depravity you and I both know that there are no neutral choices. You cannot choose to reject Christ because you are already there! Dead people cannot choose to be dead. But, given the opportunity they can choose to become alive when Christ calls. The choice is to believe or stay as you are.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said:quote:And how do you know this? Because the idea doesn't feel nice?
I can't give all the answers as to why people reject the Gospel - so many reasons - but I do know it is not because they can not choose to accept it because they are not among the elect.
Oh, and you're still avoiding the question. Do you believe that choice is morally neutral? Is rejecting Christ a morally neutral act of free will?
quote:So some people are covincted by the Spirit and still choose to reject Christ?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No one chooses to become a sinner. But you can choose, once the Spirit convicts, to leave you sin and follow Christ.
quote:Why did the rich young fall short of following Christ? he wanted to, he felt the need to, but in the end he just couldn't leave his selfishness behind. Was he of the non-elect? In which case we have to ask why Jesus looked at him and loved him, and why Jesus was sad to see him go.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:So some people are covincted by the Spirit and still choose to reject Christ?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No one chooses to become a sinner. But you can choose, once the Spirit convicts, to leave you sin and follow Christ.
Why would they do this? because they are more evil and determined to reject God that the person who does turn?
Or, I guess the other option is that it is because of things that happened in their lives that make them predisposed not to choose. Things, which I guess we must say, God was sovereign over?
quote:Indeed, and also that there is a need to follow Christ. Who wants a Saviour they don't feel they need?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not a matter of rejection. It's a matter of not believing there is a choice to be made - either not believing God exists (in some cases despite a deep desire to do so), or that if God does exist, that the Christian message is true.
Again, IME, the struggle in evangelism is not to persuade people to choose Christ, but to actually believe that such a choice is really meaningful - that there is a Christ to choose.
quote:The issue would therefore appear to boil down to the percived justice or otherwise of God only giving some that genuine free will
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
The issue is the beauty of Christ. You say that a free person can choose to reject him. I say that a truly free person simply wouldn't.
quote:Theoretically true, but I've never found that bit of it a problem. I've never come across anyone why says that they believe Christianity is true, but they don't personally need Christ.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Indeed, and also that there is a need to follow Christ. Who wants a Saviour they don't feel they need?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not a matter of rejection. It's a matter of not believing there is a choice to be made - either not believing God exists (in some cases despite a deep desire to do so), or that if God does exist, that the Christian message is true.
Again, IME, the struggle in evangelism is not to persuade people to choose Christ, but to actually believe that such a choice is really meaningful - that there is a Christ to choose.
quote:This literally makes no sense. If we are being created, and any choice is irresistable, the creator has not given us, restored, whatever, 'genuine free will'.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
quote:I'm not sure this helps, KLB, but I have this notion that a "willed" belief is in some ways a contradiction in terms. I suppose some 30 years into the journey I'd probably use the language of long term growth in the beliefs I hold dear, but for a good deal of the journey, belief in God has seemed more probable at some times than at others. I compare and contrast with my long marriage - in that my wife and I obviously know each other a lot better now than we did when we first loved each other - and there is some sort of triangulation which takes place in faith between knowing and loving. I'm not much into "gritted teeth" theology; the gritted teeth nearly always require a proper consideration about what is making them grit.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We did crosspost. The reason perhaps that I'm aware of this is that it's a struggle within myself even as one of the converted. As I've said before on these fora, to the consternation of some, I believe in God on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and alternate Sundays.
quote:But the moral problen is just as bad with the alternative explanation
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I keep coming up against this massive moral objection, to which I and others have alluded, which at the moment amounts to an insurmountable obstacle for me.
quote:I have. I know of a person who sat and wept through Jesus of Nazareth, said that she believed that Jesus died for the world, but that it wasn't a personal thing - ie he didn't die for her as an individual.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Theoretically true, but I've never found that bit of it a problem. I've never come across anyone why says that they believe Christianity is true, but they don't personally need Christ.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Indeed, and also that there is a need to follow Christ. Who wants a Saviour they don't feel they need?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not a matter of rejection. It's a matter of not believing there is a choice to be made - either not believing God exists (in some cases despite a deep desire to do so), or that if God does exist, that the Christian message is true.
Again, IME, the struggle in evangelism is not to persuade people to choose Christ, but to actually believe that such a choice is really meaningful - that there is a Christ to choose.
quote:I would like to apologise for this gratuitous and unnecessary bad language.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You think that the man was given saving grace in order to repent and believe.
I think that this man was scared shitless because the prisoners were escaping and his balls were on the line and he shouted "What must I do to be saved?" and on top of that was given (this is the more religious answer) prevenient grace, which led to belief which led to saving grace.
quote:But I would agree with her. It doesn't mean that I don't personally need Him. I don't really go for the "personal Saviour" thing.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I have. I know of a person who sat and wept through Jesus of Nazareth, said that she believed that Jesus died for the world, but that it wasn't a personal thing - ie he didn't die for her as an individual.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Theoretically true, but I've never found that bit of it a problem. I've never come across anyone why says that they believe Christianity is true, but they don't personally need Christ.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Indeed, and also that there is a need to follow Christ. Who wants a Saviour they don't feel they need?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not a matter of rejection. It's a matter of not believing there is a choice to be made - either not believing God exists (in some cases despite a deep desire to do so), or that if God does exist, that the Christian message is true.
Again, IME, the struggle in evangelism is not to persuade people to choose Christ, but to actually believe that such a choice is really meaningful - that there is a Christ to choose.
quote:But I would agree with her. It doesn't mean that I don't personally need Him. I don't really go for the "personal Saviour" thing. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I know of a person who sat and wept through Jesus of Nazareth, said that she believed that Jesus died for the world, but that it wasn't a personal thing - ie he didn't die for her as an individual. [/qb]
quote:I can see the point you're making, but surely this is a problem for you as well?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:So some people are covincted by the Spirit and still choose to reject Christ?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No one chooses to become a sinner. But you can choose, once the Spirit convicts, to leave you sin and follow Christ.
Why would they do this? because they are more evil and determined to reject God that the person who does turn?
Or, I guess the other option is that it is because of things that happened in their lives that make them predisposed not to choose. Things, which I guess we must say, God was sovereign over?
quote:You simply do not understand. True freedom is a not a neutral position between Christ and the lack of Christ. Christ is freedom; freedom is Christ. The 'choice' - for want a better word - that we have is not made from a purely theorietical and morally neutral position between a positive confession of Christ and and negative rejection of Christ. The choice we make is between slavery to sin (i.e. lack of freedom) and slavery to Christ (i.e. true freedom).
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:This literally makes no sense. If we are being created, and any choice is irresistable, the creator has not given us, restored, whatever, 'genuine free will'.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
quote:When you demonstrate that you have some real understanding of these things, you could try lecturing me again. Simply explaining your theology in ordinary language would be a start. But for now, probably best to work on recognising your limitations.
To the truly free person God is not a take it or leave it proposition: he is what a free person chooses. I suggest to you that the possibility of rejecting Christ would be good evidence that a person is not free. You will only understand this if you move from an anthropocentric to a Christocentirc conception of freedom.
quote:But not for the situation in which the choice was made. Either the "choice" is purely arbitrary, a random hidden variable , or else that choice is affected by our circumstances, our education, our diet, or experience of Christianity, our parents, our frriends, the weather, whatever.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not necessarily; in the alternative scheme, Man makes the choice and is therefore at least partially responsible for the consequences
quote:Good. And here's how Paul interprets it.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of the light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.John 3:19-21
quote:Let me repeat it. The passage says that God himself makes his light to shine in people's hearts so that what? So that people can understand (can know) who Christ is.
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
quote:This power is from God, not us. Even the ability to perceive the value of Christ is from God. A person cannot even consider Christ as notionally valuable without God having revealed it to them.
But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.
quote:Again, God takes the priority in this passage!
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that [b]what he has done has been done through God.
quote:Yes, I think this is the heart of the dispute.
Originally posted by ken:
Either the "choice" is purely arbitrary, a random hidden variable , or else that choice is affected by our circumstances, our education, our diet, or experience of Christianity, our parents, our frriends, the weather, whatever.
In the first case where is the real difference from God choosing on arbitrary grounds? (Not that Calvinism says he does choose arbitrarily of course, merely that he chooses for his reasons) This would truly be God playing dice with the universe - except that the dice are human souls, and they are sthe stake as well.
If on the other hand the choice is contingent on the history of the chooser then God is open to blame for allowing one person to be in a position where a good choice is likely and other where an evil choice is likely.
I think some people on this thread ought to be clearer about what they mean by "free will".
quote:Rest assured I'm not a literalist. TBH I've no idea what to make of the Fall at all.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the problem with the Original Sin concept as we tend to understand it.
I'd rather say that the Adam and Eve story is a commentary on human nature. It's not so much "this is why we're like this" as "this is what we're like"
And always have been.
quote:For my part almost, but not quite. My view is that the glorified Christ is the strongest possible motivator with which humanity can be presented. However, the influence of total depravity (AKA total inability) means that the sinful nature it totally hostile to God. This is not to say that the entire person is hostile to God for his image remains. However, the extend of Total Inability means that humanity, in it's unregenerate state, will always resist Christ at all possible costs.
ISTM that you, Leprechaun and m.t_tomb see choice as essentially a deterministic phenomenon - that is, we necessarily choose the strongest motive presented to us, which may come about by God's grace or by external circumstances.
quote:Why would the gospel bar the way back to fellowship with God??
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I know, I mean kicking them out of Eden completely? How unreasonable! He should have let them have a open return ticket at least. But to place an angel with a flashing sword (the gospel?) in the way? What a drama queen. Honestly!
quote:I'm not sure God being a piss poor designer gets us very far, as a God who gives us free will but designs us so choosing Him, salvation and eternal life doesn't seem like the best decision to most people also hasn't done a very good job. Especially when what this God really wants is for us to choose Him.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It seems the Calvinist God is a piss-poor designer. He makes humans so frail and weak that one little sin completely obliterates the race's ability to choose good, and wipes out their free will entirely.
quote:I don't kow about anyone else, but I don't think determinism is true, or even can be true. There are geuninely unpredictable physical processes that underly the world we see. God's knowledge of the "future" requires neither determinism nor prediction.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that you, Leprechaun and m.t_tomb see choice as essentially a deterministic phenomenon
quote:Not so much, really. Paul's letter certainly predates the writing of John's gospel, probably by a couple of decades or more. Your substantive point may be valid, but it has to stand on its own, not as an interpretation of John.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Good. And here's how Paul interprets it.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of the light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God. John 3:19-21
quote:
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
quote:Er.. I don't know. I just re-read my post and realised it sounds like I am pointing at some deeper point in a pseudo-clever type of way. I wasn't. Just thinking out loud, or through my fingers. Sorry.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Which was...?
quote:That's not Calvinism, that's Christianity. It's good to see that some Calvinists might accept it...
Originally posted by ken quoting Myrrh:
quote:And the consistent teaching is that everyone who is saved is saved in Christ, by grace, through faith. At least some will accept that that group might include people who didn't know they were members of the church.
the consistent teaching of Calvanists is that good Jews, Muslims, Pagans, secular, do not get into heaven - only open for Christians.
quote:
The consistent teaching of Augustinian's over all the centuries of Christianity in the West is that only Christians are saved, the rest are damned.
quote:No it hasn't been the teaching of the whole church. Christ came to call sinners to repentence not the righteous, but Calvinism (from Augustine) says that there are no righteous who don't believe in Christ (aren't baptised).
Thats been the teaching of the whole church, not just Calvinists.
Including, before this cuddly post-modern world, the Orthodox churches. Some of whom taught that all Roman Catholics were inevitably damned.
quote:
All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.
quote:Although I don't know how he is using it, visible/invisible Church isn't particularly Augustine, but he's clearly not using it in the Christian sense as Paul shows - that even those who don't have the law have it written on their hearts and their conscience judges them, and these will be judged in the end by God. Augustine denies any can do good unless baptised because he says that all are damned sinners unable to do good. Calvinism teaches that any good they do is not righteous, in effect is an illusion which comes from Satan. This is the consistent teaching of Calvinism which necessarily has to reach this conclusion in its inexorable Augustinian logic which has damned all creation as born estranged from God.
Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.
quote:
When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t …
quote:Again, I'm arguing against Calvinism not Graham, and I was the one who pointed out that this is a change of heart and mind from the Calvinist Graham of old..
But that is exactly what many Orthodox say. Some on this very Ship. "We know where the Church is, but we don;t know where it isn't" is almost a cliche from some posters.
quote:
As I'm finding frustrating that no one will engage me in exploring the origin of this doctrine of predestination.
quote:Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.
But we have! The origin of the doctine of predestination is in the authors of the New Testament - particularly the epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, perhaps together with Hebrews; and also in people taking the idea that God is eternal seriously.
quote:
I'm not sure God being a piss poor designer gets us very far, as a God who gives us free will but designs us so choosing Him, salvation and eternal life doesn't seem like the best decision to most people also hasn't done a very good job. Especially when what this God really wants is for us to choose Him.
Unless, of course God was designing with another aim in mind altogether.
quote:Isn't this normally where Piper gets quoted?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Which was...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er.. I don't know. I just re-read my post and realised it sounds like I am pointing at some deeper point in a pseudo-clever type of way. I wasn't. Just thinking out loud, or through my fingers. Sorry.
So, I'm thinking about this question, and may post more thoughts later.
quote:And this is our argument against Augustine/Calvinism - that it has created a completely different God, one not taught by Christ.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I think the point m.t is making, well but doubtless unintentionally, is that if he described his theology using everyday meanings of words, it would be rejected out of hand.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What the Hell am I missing here?
Although I think Christianity in general has a bit a tendency to rely on special meanings for ordinary words, the God he's actually decribing, as has been noted before, is a diabolical monster. If he didn't assume 'alternative' meanings, he'd be unable to even claim it referred to the Christian God, let alone the God that might conceivably be creator and sustainer of the universe.
quote:An ingenuous evasion of the point. You know perfectly well that the Orthodoc churches have taught that many are damned. And that some (yes, its a good word, but I use it because I mean it - some, more than a tiny minority, but not all) include other Christians such as Roman Catholics in that condemnation.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:No it hasn't been the teaching of the whole church. Christ came to call sinners to repentence not the righteous, but Calvinism (from Augustine) says that there are no righteous who don't believe in Christ (aren't baptised).
Thats been the teaching of the whole church, not just Calvinists.
Including, before this cuddly post-modern world, the Orthodox churches. Some of whom taught that all Roman Catholics were inevitably damned.
[/QB]
quote:Evading the point again. That makes a neat immune system for your denomination, allowing it to disengage from real discussion about what you actually teach. You might even believe it. But its not at all what most of the Fathers taught.
Orthodox teaching is that we know where the Holy Spirit is, don't know where She/He/It isn't (Hebrew/Greek/Latin).
quote:Isn;t it? It seems entirely characteristic of him to me. He's always banging on about it. Anyway, if it wasn't him, it was older than him (do you have any previous examples?) and therefore must certainly predate Luther by over a thosuand years.
quote:
All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.quote:Although I don't know how he is using it, visible/invisible Church isn't particularly Augustine
Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.
quote:So you are happy to argue against this straw-man Calvinism that you have invented, or have been warned off by your teachers, but not against the views of someone who actually is a Calvinist?
quote:
When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t …quote:Again, I'm arguing against Calvinism not Graham, and I was the one who pointed out that this is a change of heart and mind from the Calvinist Graham of old..
But that is exactly what many Orthodox say. Some on this very Ship. "We know where the Church is, but we don;t know where it isn't" is almost a cliche from some posters.
quote:That is simply untrue. I'm not saying you made it up, but I think you are perhaps uncritically accepting what you were taught.
Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.
quote:But, this is precisely the argument against Calvinism, that it teaches an evil God. Augustine found a way to love Him anyway, but that doesn't make Him a loving God by any logic that's reasonable.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I'm really not sure why you find the God that I've described in my posts on this thread to be so monstrous.
I'm pretty certain (and know from experience) that what generally comes back is an ill conceived hotch-potch of second hand objections and pop-theology. I am quite certain that the problem lies in your intellectual laziness and theological intransigence, rather than me worshipping an evil contruct of a diseased mind.
Theology requires care and attention to words and the meaning of words. Anyone even slightly familiar with poetry of T S Eliot or the writings of C S Lewis will instinctively know this. Of course, the ability to string words together does not necessarily mean that they convey truth. However, by the same token, the inability of some to understand a complex concept does not of necessity mean that the concept is diabolical or incorrect.
Telling me that I worship a monster and that love an evil God is offensive, particularly when it comes from someone who is otherwise perfectly happy to condone the worship of an elephant God. Would you be prepared to defend the worship of Kali Dave? I bet you would. And yet Kali is 10 times the monster than the God I supposedly worship.
quote:I might be looking at my copy of God's Passion for His Glory to help me think about it yes.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Isn't this normally where Piper gets quoted?
quote:And I say free will was never lost...
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog
You maintain the free will is restored by grace but that Christ is a take it or leave it offer to a person with free will.
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
quote:You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that "the law of sin and death", to quote Paul, distorts our free will. That is surely a thoroughly Biblical insight, which, I would have thought was as uncontrovesial amongst Orthodox Christians as amongst those of a Reformed persuasion. Actually, shock, horror, I agree with m-t here:
And I say free will was never lost...
quote:. There! Never thought I'd say that. Must...go...and...lie...down!
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
The issue is the beauty of Christ. You say that a free person can choose to reject him. I say that a truly free person simply wouldn't.
quote:You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that "the law of sin and death", to quote Paul, distorts our free will. That is surely a thoroughly Biblical insight, which, I would have thought was as uncontrovesial amongst Orthodox Christians as amongst those of a Reformed persuasion. Actually, shock, horror, I agree with m-t here:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE] And I say free will was never lost...
quote:That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
quote:The word I used was not "lost" but "distorted", that is, not obliterated but seriously compromised, with the effect that we are, in some sense, less able to, by act of will, follow Christ. Which I stand by. Of course, the degree of that compromise is debatable; I guess, from his posts here, that m-t would put it higher than would I, but I stand by my claim that this is a biblical teaching. Romans 7 springs to mind, but there are lots of other references.
That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.
Christ continued to teach obedeience to the commandments, not the traditions of men, do not kill, do not bear false witness, honour mother and father, etc.
quote:Not sure why I'm defending the Calvinist position, but I do think this is a little unfair. It's not that m-t and co see the "potion" as something that makes you do anything. Rather it is a medicine that opens your eyes and allows you to recognise the one with whom we would have always fallen in love, had we but the eyes to see him/her. The response is free will, the grace is the method by which the restoration of that undistorted free will is secured.
To me that sounds like Shrek II where a potion is given to make the princess fall in love with the prince. No free will, no choice - no love I daresay. Unless of course, along with grace God makes us love him as well. Sounds a bit sad to me - can God not get people to love him for what he is? Instead he has to make us love him - he must be really unlovable in that case!
quote:You can believe that if you like.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
ISTM that this whole extremely long thread boils down to one word with 2 divisions: grace.
Wesleyans believe that total depravity mitigates against someone 'deciding for Christ' because sin is part of our total being. We believe that prevenient grace is what enables the sinner to see first the need and then the possibility of salvation. Once the response is made - and it's not irresistible - saving grace is received and the person is born again of the Spirit.
quote:No. I fully recognise what is known as common grace. God causes the sun to rise on the righteous and the wicked without distinction. God blesses humanity with the grace of life.
Calvinists in the guise of Mr Tomb seem to make no distinction. To them, all grace is saving grace and this grace is given by the sovereign choice of God. Once given, the soul is enlightened and can do no other than to choose to repent.
quote:Oh for goodness sake! Can't you see it? At least you try to understand my POV even if you then decided to disagree. At the moment you simply have not grasped the concept. Let me say it as simply as I can. Calvinist thinking always starts with God. Arminian thinking tends to start with man. So, here goes.
To me that sounds like Shrek II where a potion is given to make the princess fall in love with the prince. No free will, no choice - no love I daresay. Unless of course, along with grace God makes us love him as well. Sounds a bit sad to me - can God not get people to love him for what he is? Instead he has to make us love him - he must be really unlovable in that case!
quote:Now thank God that you are able to do this! If you do you'll be a Calvinist. If you won't acknowledge that your ability to do this has come from God, please answer the following question: where did it come from?
I think I will love him for myself thank you, seeing that he allowed me to repent and enabled me to respond willingly and freely to his grace.
quote:This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Not sure why I'm defending the Calvinist position, but I do think this is a little unfair. It's not that m-t and co see the "potion" as something that makes you do anything. Rather it is a medicine that opens your eyes and allows you to recognise the one with whom we would have always fallen in love, had we but the eyes to see him/her. The response is free will, the grace is the method by which the restoration of that undistorted free will is secured.
To me that sounds like Shrek II where a potion is given to make the princess fall in love with the prince. No free will, no choice - no love I daresay. Unless of course, along with grace God makes us love him as well. Sounds a bit sad to me - can God not get people to love him for what he is? Instead he has to make us love him - he must be really unlovable in that case!
quote:The phrase that come to mind in this regard is that we are 'very far gone from original righteousness'. Not completely gone, but far enough that we are not in fact 'free': the human will is very much bent in upon itself. This is where the idea of Total Depravity comes in: not in the sense that each human being is holistically depraved in totality (i.e. totally evil), but in the sense that as holistic beings there is no aspect of our humanity that sin has not seriously tainted.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:The word I used was not "lost" but "distorted", that is, not obliterated but seriously compromised, with the effect that we are, in some sense, less able to, by act of will, follow Christ. Which I stand by. Of course, the degree of that compromise is debatable; I guess, from his posts here, that m-t would put it higher than would I, but I stand by my claim that this is a biblical teaching.
That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.
Christ continued to teach obedeience to the commandments, not the traditions of men, do not kill, do not bear false witness, honour mother and father, etc.
quote:Calvinism, for some reason, maintains that the grace that makes men free is only offered to some. That is what makes the doctrine completely unfathomable for a large majority of Christians who cannot get past the question, "Why wouldn't God have offered this grace to all?"
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?
quote:Would it be this essay? Have briefly read it. I kind of get his argument that the best example of God's Perfect Will -v- His Permissive Will is the crucifixion. However, I find this distinction to be somewhat artificial although I can see where Piper is coming from. A better contrast IMO is between desire and will; desire demands instant gratification whereas will postpones satisfaction to achieve a better result in the long run. A useful analogy here is the concept of Emotional Quotient (EQ). EQ in children is recognised as being as important as IQ by behavioural scientists and child psychologists. The basic idea is that EQ is the measure of our ability to postpone gratification of our desires. The classic way of measuring it is to put a child in a room with a sweet and say that if the child waits an hour without eating the sweet, he or she can have an entire box of sweets. Some children succumb pretty quickly to temptation, others more slowly, and a few ride out the entire hour (apparently they are the ones destined to go far in life because they are able to subordinate their immediate desire to the achievement of a greater long-term goal). In the same way that the child can have one sweet immediately, likewise God could have created us without free will and so avoided suffering – and also any kind of meaningful relationship with us; instead He gave us free will knowing the consequence would be the Fall, evil, sickness, poverty and death but nevertheless permitting all of this so that He could in due course enjoy a perfect relationship based on mutual freedom with at least some of us through the Cross. Thus, going back to Piper, God did not desire the crucifixion, but nevertheless willed it as being essential to His plan of redemption
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
OK. Matt. I'm currently reading an essay by John Piper called Are there two wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to be Saved. I think it's an attempt to resolve the main objection to Election that has been raised on this thread; which is this: if God can choose to save some from all eternity why does he not save all?
I've not finished it yet. When I have I shall post my findings. Looks quite good, though. At least he's takling the problem head on.
quote:Actually my use of "lost" was in direct response to the previous post quoting M.T-tomb:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:The word I used was not "lost" but "distorted", that is, not obliterated but seriously compromised, with the effect that we are, in some sense, less able to, by act of will, follow Christ. Which I stand by. Of course, the degree of that compromise is debatable; I guess, from his posts here, that m-t would put it higher than would I, but I stand by my claim that this is a biblical teaching. Romans 7 springs to mind, but there are lots of other references.
That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.
Christ continued to teach obedeience to the commandments, not the traditions of men, do not kill, do not bear false witness, honour mother and father, etc.
quote:Orthodox do not teach that free will needs to restored - because it was never lost. Grace was not lost. There is no doctrine of Augustine's Original Sin in the Orthodox Church. We do not teach the doctrine of total depravity/total sinful nature unable to do good.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.
quote:Quite right.
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:Calvinism, for some reason, maintains that the grace that makes men free is only offered to some. That is what makes the doctrine completely unfathomable for a large majority of Christians who cannot get past the question, "Why wouldn't God have offered this grace to all?"
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?
When the answer to that question becomes, "He did, of course," then the position becomes much more realistic.
quote:That's a misunderstanding of the concept, though. What seems to be evident is that some people choose to follow Christ and others don't. This can be explained by claiming that those who have chosen to follow Christ have done so because their view of Christ has become undistorted enough so as to want to freely choose Him. Those who don't choose Christ, in that explanation, don't because they have not had the truth revealed to their heart in the same way.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The problem, MTT, is that your claim that a perfectly free person would always choose Christ presupposes something false, namely, that we have a clear and undistorted view of Christ in this life, so that we can see he is perfectly lovely and what the soul actually wants. Scripture and common sense both tell us this is not true.
quote:As it is in the power of God to give someone such a clear and undistorted view, the moral problem is the same either way.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
your claim that a perfectly free person would always choose Christ presupposes something false, namely, that we have a clear and undistorted view of Christ in this life, so that we can see he is perfectly lovely and what the soul actually wants.
quote:Thanks, Digory, couldn't have put it any better myself. Seriously, m-t, I do have considerable sympathy with a high view of God's sovereignty, so on the narrow issue, your understanding of human and divine wills fits pretty well with mine, though I would say that your nuanced view of human free will is not one which I have often seen espoused by your doctrinal fellow travellers. Nor am I quite sure how these views mesh with your, ISTM, strong interpretation of Jesus words about seeing the Kingdom of God.
quote:Originally posted by m.t-tomb:This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?
Calvinism, for some reason, maintains that the grace that makes men free is only offered to some. That is what makes the doctrine completely unfathomable for a large majority of Christians who cannot get past the question, "Why wouldn't God have offered this grace to all?"
When the answer to that question becomes, "He did, of course," then the position becomes much more realistic.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:An ingenuous evasion of the point. You know perfectly well that the Orthodoc churches have taught that many are damned. And that some (yes, its a good word, but I use it because I mean it - some, more than a tiny minority, but not all) include other Christians such as Roman Catholics in that condemnation.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No it hasn't been the teaching of the whole church. Christ came to call sinners to repentence not the righteous, but Calvinism (from Augustine) says that there are no righteous who don't believe in Christ (aren't baptised).
quote:
Orthodox teaching is that we know where the Holy Spirit is, don't know where She/He/It isn't (Hebrew/Greek/Latin).
quote:This is the teaching of the early Church which didn't have to define it because it didn't have a doctrine which denied it to non-Christians. It surprised Peter too...
Evading the point again. That makes a neat immune system for your denomination, allowing it to disengage from real discussion about what you actually teach. You might even believe it. But its not at all what most of the Fathers taught.
quote:
quote:
All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.quote:Although I don't know how he is using it, visible/invisible Church isn't particularly Augustine
Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.
quote:
Isn;t it? It seems entirely characteristic of him to me. He's always banging on about it. Anyway, if it wasn't him, it was older than him (do you have any previous examples?) and therefore must certainly predate Luther by over a thosuand years.
quote:
Again, I'm arguing against Calvinism not Graham, and I was the one who pointed out that this is a change of heart and mind from the Calvinist Graham of old..
quote:
So you are happy to argue against this straw-man Calvinism that you have invented, or have been warned off by your teachers, but not against the views of someone who actually is a Calvinist?
quote:From which also this:
In 1978, Dr. Graham temporarily came full circle, saying, “I used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that” (McCall’s, January, 1978). The statement caused such a stir that it was quickly dismissed by Christianity Today (founded by Dr. Graham and his father-in-law) as a misquotation. McCall’s apparently did not misquote.
On a May 31, 1997, Dr. Graham took part in a seven-minute televised interview with Robert Schuller. The following is an exact excerpt of that broadcast: (continued on Billy Graham - What Means This? By Chip Thornton
quote:
The Metamorphosis of Dr. Graham’s Theology
In Evangelicalism Divided (2000), Iain Murray excellently traces one aspect of the metamorphosis of Dr. Graham’s theology, namely, inclusivism (note: much of the following is taken from Murray’s book). Inclusivism is the idea that one religion is best, but salvation is possible in other religions. This idea strikes at the heart of the exclusive atonement of Jesus Christ (John 14:6), thus striking at the very heart of the gospel that Dr. Graham spent the last 60 years proclaiming.
quote:
Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.
quote:The early Church did not teach that we're born damned to hell. Even the term Original Sin was unknown to it. If it's true doctrine why didn't Christ teach it? Did he tell anyone that they where damned to hell unable to do good because all humanity was born in Original Sin - or did He continue teaching choice to follow the commandments? Why would God have given us commandments if we didn't have free will to choose to follow them or not? God works from the premise we have free will, are capable of doing good. Augustine's doctrine (Calvinism and the rest) is a figment of his imagination...
That is simply untrue. I'm not saying you made it up, but I think you are perhaps uncritically accepting what you were taught.
quote:
We do not teach the doctrine of total depravity/total sinful nature unable to do good.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
My goodness! You really don't get it do you? quote:http://ptdc.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_ptdc_archive.html
John Calvin
John Calvin taught a doctrine called Total Depravity. Calvin defended and refined the Augustinian approach to salvation which involved Total Depravity, Predestination, and Irresistible Grace. Augustine had developed much of his theological position in response to a British Monk named Pelagius. Pelagius rejected the doctrine of original sin and Predestination. Pelagius’ teachings were known as Pelagianism. In the end, Augustine won the long debate and Pelagius’ teachings were condemned as heresy. Calvin came along later and refined the theology of Augustine into a more systematic approach which was often referred to as Systematic Augustinianism .
quote:At the risk of flinging proof-texts around Kerygmaniacally, what then do you make of eg: Eph 1: 4-12?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.
quote:What then do you make of the first 5 chapters of Romans and in particular 5:12-21?
The early Church did not teach that we're born damned to hell. Even the term Original Sin was unknown to it. If it's true doctrine why didn't Christ teach it?
quote:You softy, you..
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Posted by Myrrh:quote:
We do not teach the doctrine of total depravity/total sinful nature unable to do good.
YOU - DON'T - UNDERSTAND - THE - DOCTRINE - OF - TOTAL - DEPRAVITY.
Look it up before you say anything about it again. Please.
quote:Myrrh
The Hard View
......
The Calvinistic Heidelberg Catechism asks the question:
Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?
Apparently, in agreement with Hanko and Hoeksema, it answers:
Indeed we are; except we are regenerated (born again) by the Spirit of God.[21]
John Calvin also seemed to take the harder view when he said,
...Our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede), that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else but concupiscence.
.....
The Inoperable Will of Man
What we cannot do because of Total Depravity, from a Calvinistic Perspective, is of course very important to a Calvinistic definition of Depravity, especially as it is relates to a gospel presentation directed at the unregenerate. That is, Calvinistically speaking, the unregenerate are not only unable to do good (as well as unable to refrain from doing bad) spiritually in a general sense, but more specifically, they are unable to respond to God or the Gospel (to any degree) while in an unregenerate state or before being born again.
According to this view, the will of unregenerate man (in so far as responding to God, the Gospel, etc., is concerned) is dead and therefore inoperable. This idea of an inoperable will is very crucial to a complete understanding of a Calvinistic definition of Total Depravity. THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM George Bryson
quote:“Nothing but a Loathsome Stench”:
21. Reformed theologian Anthony A. Hoekema maintains that what Reformed theology has traditionally called “total depravity” means only that “the corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature: to one’s reason and will as well as to one’s appetites and impulses.” It does not mean that “the unregenerate person by nature is unable to do good in any sense of the word. Because of God’s common grace … the development of sin in history and society is restrained. The unregenerate person can still do certain kinds of good and can exercise certain kinds of virtue.” Recognizing that it is a mistake, if not absurd, to call a depravity that is merely partial, “total,” Hoekema proposes a new adjective to describe the depravity of the unregenerated man: “pervasive” (Created in God’s Image, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986, pp. 150-152). Although Hoekema does not notice, this results in a change in the historic acronym describing the Reformed confession of the doctrines of grace: PULIP. Hoekema’s doctrine, which is probably the prevailing opinion in Reformed circles today, is open rejection of the confessionally Reformed doctrine of man’s total, that is, complete, depravity by nature. So open a rejection is it that this new doctrine changes the name of the traditional, confessional doctrine. It is a doctrine of partial depravity. And common grace is the cause. For a critique of the ongoing revision of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity because of the notion of common grace, see my article, “Total, Absolute, or Partial Depravity?” in the Standard Bearer 77, no. 12 (March 15, 2001): 268-270.
quote:No.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:No. I fully recognise what is known as common grace. God causes the sun to rise on the righteous and the wicked without distinction. God blesses humanity with the grace of life.
Calvinists in the guise of Mr Tomb seem to make no distinction. To them, all grace is saving grace and this grace is given by the sovereign choice of God. Once given, the soul is enlightened and can do no other than to choose to repent.
[/QB]
quote:I'll take a look at those later this evening, or tomorrow, but to be going on with:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:At the risk of flinging proof-texts around Kerygmaniacally, what then do you make of eg: Eph 1: 4-12?
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.quote:What then do you make of the first 5 chapters of Romans and in particular 5:12-21?
The early Church did not teach that we're born damned to hell. Even the term Original Sin was unknown to it. If it's true doctrine why didn't Christ teach it?
quote:From The Orthodox New Testament Holy Apostles Convent, Colorado.
Romans 2:4...
Or despiseth thou the wealth of His kindness and forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leadeth thee to repentence? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou storest up to thyself wrath in a day of wrath and revelation of a righteous judgment of God, Who will render to each according to his works: to those on the one hand who with patience in good work seek glory and honor and incorruptibility, eternal life; but to those on the other hanbd who are factious and disobey the truth, and suffer themselves to be persuaded to unrighteousness, anger and wrath - affliction and straits upon every soul of man that worketh out evil, both of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to everyone who worketh good, both to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as did sin without law shall also perish without law; and as many as did sin in the law shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For whenever the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, who not the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts... etc.
quote:Does this include the writings of Peter and Jude, just before Revelations? Do you doubt that Peter and Jude believed in an imminent physical destruction of the physical universe by fire, with the unbelieving dead and living destined to die in the fire, just as the unbelieving living were drowned in The Flood, an historical and factual event to Peter and Jude?
Originally posted by hatless:
Where the Bible talks about heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, I think it's not directing our attention to an afterlife, but is talking about this life in a heightened way...
quote:I think you've just discovered a new and inappropriate expression of guilt, my friend. But I'm sure you'll recover soon. Clearly you also have a talent for speed reading, if you got through all that lot in 2 hours! Ages back in this massive thread, Father Gregory suggested that there might be a certain psychology associated with Calvinism (I nearly riposted that the same might be said for Orthodoxy but I didn't 'cos I'm a Christian and am called to love him, despite his confusion ....).
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think, as a Christian, that I should really have spent two hours reading this thread!
quote:I believe it must be the other way around, since Calvin lived 1509-1564 and Jacobus Arminius lived 1560-1609. By my brief google readings, Arminius was trying to reform Calvinism to make it more acceptable.
Originally posted by Mayle:
Forgive me if anyone's said this already, but as I understand it, Calvin was reacting to the Five Points of Arminianism.
quote:Welcome, Mayle, and enjoy. A question for you. Why do you think 'they just can't help thinking it's true'? Is TULIP so vastly obvious a take on the nature of Man and God that nothing else will do for truth?
Originally posted by Mayle:
I don't think it's a question of some people being attracted to the gloomier POV; it just that they can't help thinking it's true.
quote:You know, I've never read Jude before, and only a few bits of Peter. So I looked them up - and I couldn't bear to read more than a few sentences tonight. Mostly tosh, I'd say. Jude is probably all tosh. 1 Peter is perhaps an attempt to come to terms with horrifying persecution in terms that the Christian tradition supplies. 2 Peter is losing the plot, I think.
Does this include the writings of Peter and Jude, just before Revelations? Do you doubt that Peter and Jude believed in an imminent physical destruction of the physical universe by fire, with the unbelieving dead and living destined to die in the fire, just as the unbelieving living were drowned in The Flood, an historical and factual event to Peter and Jude?
quote:Well, to be fair, at 24,000 posts, I don't think anyone can be expected to have read your entire posting output on SOF. At least he read the thread!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It may make you feel better about yourself to castigate us into such a role, but it's not a fair reading of this thread, let alone of our entire posting output on the SOF.
quote:Sorry, Mousethief, ken and others, I wasn't meaning to accuse you of such narrowness. I know you're not like that. It's simply my reaction to the discussion. Take a broader view and the conundrums disappear, or at least soften.
I think it's totally unfair the way you have portrayed those of us who take this question seriously and argue passionately about it. I don't understand why you would say such things
quote:Oh I don't know! I think the normal over-arching SofF Purg guideline has applied. This one, I mean
Originally posted by hatless:
My surprise is that you have let the Calvinist position dictate the limits of discussion.
quote:Er.... because the title of the thread is ``The background of Calvinism'' ??
Originally posted by hatless:
My surprise is that you have let the Calvinist position dictate the limits of discussion.
quote:Not sure that the latter is correct (the former is by definition): Mrs B's parents are EBs and from what I can gather are more of a mixture; tha dreadful compound word, 'Calvinian' would best sum them up. The observed social behaviour to which you refer, their detachment from 'the world' and pessimistic outlook stem more from their pre-millenial dispensationalism than any form of Calvinism.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, I think the Strict and Particular Baptists and the Exclusive Brethren are uniformally Calvinist.
quote:But no one is looking at the background! If Christianity is about escaping God's wrath then Calvinism and Arminianism are alternative positions worth debating. But if Christianity is about hearing the good news of God come among us, turning, and seeking the Kingdom, then the questions hardly make sense. So it seems to me (and assuming the Kingdom is not understood as another word for where we hope to go when we die).
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:Er.... because the title of the thread is ``The background of Calvinism'' ??
Originally posted by hatless:
My surprise is that you have let the Calvinist position dictate the limits of discussion.
quote:Er, I've done not much else other than look at background.. Hence my insistence that Augustine be taken into consideration - and if that isn't directly relevant to hearing the good news of God and turning and seeking the Kingdom I don't know what is. Augustine's doctrines corrupt that message completely.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:But no one is looking at the background! If Christianity is about escaping God's wrath then Calvinism and Arminianism are alternative positions worth debating. But if Christianity is about hearing the good news of God come among us, turning, and seeking the Kingdom, then the questions hardly make sense. So it seems to me (and assuming the Kingdom is not understood as another word for where we hope to go when we die).
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:Er.... because the title of the thread is ``The background of Calvinism'' ??
Originally posted by hatless:
My surprise is that you have let the Calvinist position dictate the limits of discussion.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I just wanted to say I understand more why I am still so scared of God.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Who is to say that I am not creating a God in my own image?![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:This is quite a distressing post, if I might be so bold.
Originally posted by Malin:
Having now caught up all the way with this thread
Some people have commented and wondered about the effects of a 'few saved, rest damned forever' theology in everyday life (forgive me if this is a bit of a tangent). I grew up exclusive brethren and I can say that it is now my greatest underlying fear and cold dreaded terror that I am cursed by God and lost forever.
When I was in that environment I was taught I was one of the elect few and therefore was both very grateful and 'secure' in my salvation. My huge problem then was those friends and family who were not christians. But since God would save who he would save, I knew if they were elect they would be OK and if not .... there was nothing I could do about it. I tried not to think about it and concentrated on being a 'good' believer and pleasing God.
Over time I moved away from this and now everything in me wants to completely let go of this harsh image of God and rest in the loving arms of Christ, but I am finding it so hard to trust that I am not deceiving myself and being misled - after all, I am totally depraved am I not?
So for me - not a great receipe for joy, peace, love and other fruit of the Spirit. I am still struggling to know how to weigh all the bible passages on judgement, hell, wrath etc and still desperatly seeking peace.
quote:To be honest, the "discussion" here has been dictated by one prolific poster who is repeating stuff that simply isn't true.
Originally posted by hatless:
My surprise is that you have let the Calvinist position dictate the limits of discussion.
quote:That's a terrible thing to fear.
Originally posted by Malin:
So for me - not a great receipe for joy, peace, love and other fruit of the Spirit. I am still struggling to know how to weigh all the bible passages on judgement, hell, wrath etc and still desperatly seeking peace.
quote:But M.T-Tomb means well.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:To be honest, the "discussion" here has been dictated by one prolific poster who is repeating stuff that simply isn't true.
Originally posted by hatless:
My surprise is that you have let the Calvinist position dictate the limits of discussion.
quote:Except, the questions still make perfect sense.
Originally posted by hatless:
But no one is looking at the background! If Christianity is about escaping God's wrath then Calvinism and Arminianism are alternative positions worth debating. But if Christianity is about hearing the good news of God come among us, turning, and seeking the Kingdom, then the questions hardly make sense. So it seems to me (and assuming the Kingdom is not understood as another word for where we hope to go when we die).
quote:And for the record, I think he's been presenting his argument extremely well.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:But M.T-Tomb means well.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:To be honest, the "discussion" here has been dictated by one prolific poster who is repeating stuff that simply isn't true.
Originally posted by hatless:
My surprise is that you have let the Calvinist position dictate the limits of discussion.
quote:I hope that's a comfort to his parishioners.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But M.T-Tomb means well.
quote:And remember that the whole notion of the need for salvation is a human invention for which there is no scrap of verifiable evidence. Given the potential benefits in terms of power that accrues to those able to convince others they know about these things, I'd say there's good reason to give the idea no credence whatsoever.
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Salvation can start now, next week, or after we're all dead, but we can still wonder how God enacts this salvation in each of us, and to whom it is available.
quote:Um, that's not what I meant. I'm perfectly happy to combine foreknowledge with indeterminacy and I'm at least aware of the existence of quantum phenomena.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I don't kow about anyone else, but I don't think determinism is true, or even can be true. There are geuninely unpredictable physical processes that underly the world we see. God's knowledge of the "future" requires neither determinism nor prediction.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that you, Leprechaun and m.t_tomb see choice as essentially a deterministic phenomenon
quote:What was the strongest motive for Adam in the Garden of Eden?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Ricardus said:quote:For my part almost, but not quite. My view is that the glorified Christ is the strongest possible motivator with which humanity can be presented.
ISTM that you, Leprechaun and m.t_tomb see choice as essentially a deterministic phenomenon - that is, we necessarily choose the strongest motive presented to us, which may come about by God's grace or by external circumstances.
quote:Yes. That sounds right.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Choice and predeterminism collapse onto each other and we have to rethink our whole approach to this form of salvation. More importantly if gives a space for divine will and individual will to interact in the creation of what happens.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You know, I've never read Jude before, and only a few bits of Peter. So I looked them up - and I couldn't bear to read more than a few sentences tonight. Mostly tosh, I'd say.
quote:
Originally posted by Malin:
I grew up exclusive brethren and I can say that it is now my greatest underlying fear and cold dreaded terror that I am cursed by God and lost forever..
quote:Whose property is it? Did Jesus do it at all, even unintentionally, when he told the sad truth about sheep and goats, fires not being quenched, and souls in Hell begging fruitlessly for drops of water? Were tiny children present during these stories, and if not when would he break the bad news to them?
Originally posted by ken:
All I'm trying to say really is that screwing up kids minds by threats of Hell is not the peculiar property of Calvinism.
quote:Giving up Augustine based doctrines and the wrathful God it looks to for salvation because this god has told them they're all totally depraved is a good first step... try reading The River of Fire as an antidote to the poison: http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
Originally posted by Malin:
Over time I moved away from this and now everything in me wants to completely let go of this harsh image of God and rest in the loving arms of Christ, but I am finding it so hard to trust that I am not deceiving myself and being misled - after all, I am totally depraved am I not?
So for me - not a great receipe for joy, peace, love and other fruit of the Spirit. I am still struggling to know how to weigh all the bible passages on judgement, hell, wrath etc and still desperatly seeking peace.
quote:Myrrh, your irrational crusade against St Augustine and against western Christianity in general is getting really, really, boring.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Giving up Augustine based doctrines and the wrathful God it looks to for salvation because this god has told them they're all totally depraved is a good first step...
quote:I doubt if he had read Augustine either.
Centuries ago, George Whitefield, the
Calvinistic Methodist evangelist of the First Great Awakening, similarly argued: "Alas, I never read anything that Calvin wrote; my doctrines I had from Christ and his apostles; I was taught them of God."
quote:That's not strictly true, Astro - Augustine is pretty influencial within Reformed thought. B.B. Warfield has described the Reformation as the story of Augustine's doctrine of Grace set against Augustine's doctrin of the Church. I wouldn't say that "most" Protestants see him as one of the bad guys, and those that do are obviously ignorant of the high regard he was held in by the Reformers.
Originally posted by Astro:
P. P. S. Myrrh do you realise that most Protestants have no more time for Augustine than you do seeing him as some kind of Roman Catholic distorter of Christianity - so by trying to blame the reformed stream of Protestantism on him is barking up the wrong tree.
quote:A crusade? This discussion is about Calvin who after Luther became the greatest defender of Augustine's doctrines. My argument here is that Calvin's predestination is an Augustinian construct and not known in the early Church, nor even now accepted by the Orthodox. I'm terribly sorry that my point of view dismisses all of Augustine based Churches as teaching "a God" that was not taught by Christ as understood in the early Church.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Myrrh, your irrational crusade against St Augustine and against western Christianity in general is getting really, really, boring.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Giving up Augustine based doctrines and the wrathful God it looks to for salvation because this god has told them they're all totally depraved is a good first step...
quote:But isn't taking out unconditional free will limiting God to time? Or has the final judgement already been given?
Originally posted by Astro:
But I think the comments made above about God being outside time are relevant. I suppose that God can sit there and look at the life of the universe from the end of time and say "Those are the peopel who chose me" and then adjust his view slightly so that he is looking at the universe from the beginning of time see teh same people and say "Those are the people who will choose me".
Sometimes we make God too small.
quote:Augustine really is the origin of the mainstream Churches in the WEst from the RCC - the reformers didn't question the Original Sin premise, as the first Quaker did, but tweaked around with the extrapolations from it.
P. P. S. Myrrh do you realise that most Protestants have no more time for Augustine than you do seeing him as some kind of Roman Catholic distorter of Christianity - so by trying to blame the reformed stream of Protestantism on him is barking up the wrong tree.
quote:I'm still waiting to hear m.t-tomb's answer to this conundrum, which I think knocks an irreparable hole in his position.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If a free person inevitably chooses Christ, in the same way that a free mathematician inevitably declares two plus two to equal four, then to what was Adam enslaved?
quote:For anyone outside of time this question does not make sense.
Or has the final judgement already been given?
quote:Are you really suggesting that a lover chooses the object of his love on the basis of a mathematical formula? I'm not talking about mental assent to facts; I'm talking about what Jonathan Edward's described as Religious Affection. A person chooses Christ not simply because 'it makes sense' intellectually or because it complies with a kind of forumulaic spiritual logic but because Christ is objectively desirable: because the beauty of holiness (made incarnate in Christ) inevitably inspires worship in the genuinely free soul.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I'm still waiting to hear m.t-tomb's answer to this conundrum, which I think knocks an irreparable hole in his position.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If a free person inevitably chooses Christ, in the same way that a free mathematician inevitably declares two plus two to equal four, then to what was Adam enslaved?
quote:
But what do I love when I love my God? Not material beauty or beauty of a temporal order; not the brilliance of earthly light, so welcome to our eyes; not the sweet melody of harmony and song; not the fragrance of flowers, perfumes, and spices; not manna or honey; not limbs such as the body delights to embrace. It is not these that I love when I love my God.
And yet, when I love him, it is true that I love a light of a certain kind, a voice, a perfume, a food, and embrace; but they are of a kind that I love in my inner self, when my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space; when it listens to sound that never dies away; when it breathes fragrance that is not bourne away on the wind; when it tastes food that is never consumed in the eating; when it clings to an embrace from which it is not severed by fulfilment of desire. This is what I love when I love my God. Saint Augustine, Confessions X.6
quote:Before the fall Adam and Eve had no inner sinful nature; no indwelling sin. Their will was free in the sense that they had no flesh with which to contend. However, the absence of the flesh means that their freedom was of a different order: they were in a state of original righteousness. They were righteous in and of themselves. They were not in a perpetual inner state of choosing between rebellion and obedience. Their inner nature was of an entirely different order to ours but, nonetheless, it was not fully glorified.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But you're saying Adam was enslaved to sin BEFORE THE FALL. How can that be?
quote:Because you are conflating regeneration and sanctification. There is a profound difference between choosing the object of one's desire and the perfect fulfilment of that desire. It is entirely possible to love someone and yet be incapable of loving that person as they should be loved. And the incapacity to perfectly love in actuality does not diminish or invalidate the initial desire to perfectly love.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Hang on a minute, something's just occurred to me!
Romans 7.
For what I am doing I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate that I do..."
If there are times when I cannot chose to do the right thing as a Christian, a redeemed man, how come, when I am first exposed to grace I will always do the right thing and choose to follow Christ?
quote:Apologies for a slight tangent, but could I ask you to clarify one point in the above?
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
pre-regenerate people are not able not to sin (this is not to say that everything they do is totally evil); regeneration makes us able not to sin* (this is not to say that everything we do is good); sanctifiation is the practical and essential outworking of that ability (the lifelong battle between flesh and Spirit); glorification will finally make us not able to sin (final victory).
quote:Yes, you are right. I think it is entirely possible for a non-Christian philanthropist to do actions of amazing goodness. I think it is possible for a non-Christian's ethical and moral behaviour to be vastly superior to a Christian's behaviour.
In fact, a casual comparison between a Christian and a non-Christian may not turn up much that is more morally or ethically superior (obviously it will in some cases - both ways round, I suspect. I don't think that this matters for my argument).
quote:In a sense, yes. Although I do not think that a Christian's good deeds can ever be completely sinless. What I think is this: the degree to which a deed proceeds from faith (of the Christ-centred kind) is the degree to which it is sinless. The degree to which a deed is done, because it is the fruit of faith in Christ, is the measure by which the worth of that deed is weighed. Paul (speaking of food regulations) in Romans 14.23 says, 'Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.'
Your contention - as I understand it - is that the good deeds of the non-regenerate person are still sinful, whereas the good deeds of the Christian are not.
quote:Precisely! You have identified the the distinction between sin and sins. Sin is an ontological state of inner rebellion against, and hostility toward, God which has caused humanity to exchange the glory of God for things less than God. It is the absence of a living faith through which Christ is established as the ultimate object of one's desire. In this sense the state of sin (as defined above) leads inevitably to actual sins. So yes, in a sense, sin at its root is nothing to do with our actions at all (although of course it always leads to sinful actions). Sins are the outworking of a deeper depravity called sin.
The only way I can fit the above with your statement is to say something like: Sin is a state of mind/spirit, in that the regenerate nature somehow makes the Christian's behaviour qualitatively different, despite it appearing equivalent to an outside observer. This could make it appear that sin is nothing to do with your actions at all!
quote:Yes. If that act of kindness did not arise out of Christ-exulting faith it is technically deemed to be sinful. Likewise, any part (excuse the image) of an action on the part of a Christian that does not arise from faith in Christ is sin.
You might say this is obviously not true, as a regenerate person who does an evil act is still sinning. However, it seems that an unregenerate person who does the most profound act of kindness is still sinning (somehow).
quote:No, you haven't misunderstood me. I believe that unbelief is the first-fruit of sin (as defined above) and that it is indeed a heinous crime.
Is your view really that unbelief is such a heinous crime that it makes even the purest act evil, or have I misunderstood your definition of sin?
quote:I'm working on this one. It's essentially the same objection as Matt Black's and (at least at the moment) I'm not sure what I think. I'll post my reflections as soon as I'm able.
I'm not sure that Numpty's argument about original righteousnes vis-a-vis Christ's righteousness is all that convincing. It sounds more like a theoretical fix to get around a logical flaw in the argument. Maybe I just didn't understand your post that well, Numpty.
quote:I'm not sure that that works. If Adam & Eve were, as well as being without imputed/ Original Sin, without actual sin, pre-Fall, then surely if anything they had an even greater advantage re the whole 'bondage of the will' thing than those who, in the Calvinist scheme, have their free will restored through regeneration and unconditional election but still have actual sin in their day-to-day living...and yet Adam & Eve, despite being in this position of 'theletic superiority', nevertheless chose to reject God.
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:Before the fall Adam and Eve had no inner sinful nature; no indwelling sin. Their will was free in the sense that they had no flesh with which to contend. However, the absence of the flesh means that their freedom was of a different order: they were in a state of original righteousness. They were righteous in and of themselves. They were not in a perpetual inner state of choosing between rebellion and obedience. Their inner nature was of an entirely different order to ours but, nonetheless, it was not fully glorified.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But you're saying Adam was enslaved to sin BEFORE THE FALL. How can that be?
quote:I wonder whether there is some mileage in the idea that Christ shows us something of God that Adam and Eve could not have known because they hadn't sinned? IE, it is Christ's redeeming love, love to the loveless and compassion for us in our sin that wins our bruised and sinful souls inexorably to love him.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
On the other hand, I feel the force of Mousethief's argument. If, when freed from all constraints, a person's spirit is automatically drawn to Christ, why was it not so in the beghinning? Why was there ever a fall? I'm not sure that Numpty's argument about original righteousnes vis-a-vis Christ's righteousness is all that convincing. It sounds more like a theoretical fix to get around a logical flaw in the argument. Maybe I just didn't understand your post that well, Numpty.
quote:I can see that there is some force in this, but would not to pursue this line imply that, in some way, it is our gratitude to Christ, in other words something that comes from us, however indirectly, which makes a transforming difference, and I'm not sure that this is reconcilible with a "sola gratia" understanding of salvation (or rather, of sanctification, which is the specific point uder discussion). About the idea that we have a fuller revelation of God than Adam and Eve, I think that it is quite embedded in New Testament thinking.
I wonder whether there is some mileage in the idea that Christ shows us something of God that Adam and Eve could not have known because they hadn't sinned? IE, it is Christ's redeeming love, love to the loveless and compassion for us in our sin that wins our bruised and sinful souls inexorably to love him.
Because we have (dare I say it) a fuller revelation of God in Christ than Adam and Eve did, when our eyes our opened to it, we inevitably choose this amazing grace freely.
quote:As you may know
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I can see that there is some force in this, but would not to pursue this line imply that, in some way, it is our gratitude to Christ, in other words something that comes from us, however indirectly, which makes a transforming difference, and I'm not sure that this is reconcilible with a "sola gratia" understanding of salvation (or rather, of sanctification, which is the specific point uder discussion).
I like to test the boundaries of these things because I think that the faith versus works thing is a storm in a teacup.quote:I don't think so. The Puritans who developed this idea waxed lyrical about the beauty of Christ. His endless depths of compassion are part of his beauty that only we can see. As I implied, I'm not sure about this line of argument. But it may have some mileage.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I can see that there is some force in this, but would not to pursue this line imply that, in some way, it is our gratitude to Christ, in other words something that comes from us, however indirectly, which makes a transforming difference, and I'm not sure that this is reconcilible with a "sola gratia" understanding of salvation (or rather, of sanctification, which is the specific point uder discussion).
quote:Indeed. I just move in some circles where people have a few issues with that.
About the idea that we have a fuller revelation of God than Adam and Eve, I think that it is quite embedded in New Testament thinking.
quote:Well, of course, as to intent, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Gratitude and indebtedness to Christ is indeed a powerful motivator. But the point of grace in these terms is not only that it motivates us to do what we would otherwise not be motivated to do (though it may well do that) but it is also that, through it, the Holy Spirit empowers us to do that which we are already motivated to do, but are unable to accomplish. Presumably, this inability is a result of our sinful nature (Romans 7), a nature not posessed by Adam and Eve prior to the fall.
I know this isn't what you said, but if anyone were to tell me that my gratitude towards Christ had no transforming effect on me whatsoever, I'd have to tell them they were barking mad. Aware of the possibility of a knee-jerk reaction from a passing hyperprotestant I'd of course want to deny that I thought I was thus earning my salvation by my gratitude, but privately I'd be thinking that the accusation would be a bit ridiculous, as if anyone could seriously think they'd earned their salvation by the hard work of permitting their ears to be used to listen to someone telling them the Gospel.
quote:Still due to the grace of God who created you able to be thankful and who put you in a situation in which that thankfulness was involved. Just as our intellectual apprection of God, poor and inadequate though it is, is entirely derived from God's gracious work in creating us. It's all grace. Even when there are means and mechanisms.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
So I don't think I'd rule out our gratitude as being one means by which our sanctification is brought about.
quote:Sorry ken, that was exactly the point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Still due to the grace of God who created you able to be thankful and who put you in a situation in which that thankfulness was involved.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
So I don't think I'd rule out our gratitude as being one means by which our sanctification is brought about.
quote:Well I see your point, but the idea of an "unfree will" does resonate with (at least my) experience. Paul, also, seems to have struggled with this problem, if Romans 7 is to be believed, I'm not really a Calvinist myself, but there does, to me, seem to be something worth saying about the human condition contained within it.
This easily explains why people choose against God, without having to drag in unfree wills or flog the "dead in our sins" metaphor into mincemeat. In other words, by stepping outside the parameters, you invite a step outside Calvinism entirely. If it can't answer the main question (why didn't Adam freely choose God?) without resorting to what for all intents and purposes looks like an epicycle (an attempt to bandage a failing theory), why bother at all?
