|
Post by behemoth on Jan 26, 2011 13:07:08 GMT -5
The ability to make a statement using only a few sentences by stripping it down to its true meaning is, sometimes, a very good quality. Also, I generally agree with behemoth's first post. Indeed, and if you look at the history of my posting I have a habit of long-ish posts, for which I must in part apologize. Then again, when discussing theological nuance and subtle differences between viewpoints brevity is not always possible. Ideas involving the precepts of Calvinism and Arminianism are the stuffs on which books are written. All said so far is certainly shorter than that, and by the number of responses questioning meaning or adding clarity it would seem that the issue is not thoroughly enough covered...that said I'll try not to plague your eyes too badly.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Jan 26, 2011 13:35:30 GMT -5
I don't this is an adequate definition of Limited Atonement. You are correct in saying that Christ's sacrifice is only applied to the elect. However, Calvinists hold that Christ's sacrifice is universally sufficient, yet is only efficient for the elect. Arminians hold to the position as well. If they didn't, they'd be universalists. Where are you getting your MTS? I forget these things. I apologize for my lack of clarity there. I agree with what you said in regards to a Calvinist position on the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency. The point I was trying to make is that I take issue with the understanding presented by Calvinists on efficiency. If the atoning work of Christ is not efficient for all then either it is insufficient, or God has chosen not to make it efficient for all. In my view (not a Calvinist view at this point) that makes God either weak as I said, or mean. Calvinists would disagree with the classification "mean" here, and would say that it is an act of grace that any are saved due to man's utter corruption as God has the right to damn all humanity. It is not our part to complain if he chooses to save some, for we all deserve that damnation. My problem comes in with the combination of "ULI" in which we have unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistable grace functioning in tandem. Atonement is limited to the elect who are elected unconditionally, and irresistably (cannot say no). This requires an utterly arbitrary process in which God elects people with no say in the matter. This arbitrary nature of election then means those damned are chosen arbitrarily as well, and sense the process of election was irresistable to begin with, then grace necessary to salvation was never on the plate for those not chosen. Perhaps fair to Adam and Eve, but to everyone after who was born an enemy of God due to original sin + total depravity the situation sucks. I have an awfully hard time not reaching the conclusion that God is creating people for the purpose of sending them to Hell if God is indeed omniscient. Note again there here I am speaking on my own behalf, not that of Calvinists who would again disagree with me. This is why (as I previously said) agree with the concept of prevenient grace a la Wesley. God has made the way possible for all with the atonement in terms of sufficiency, but as to efficiency, humans play a role of secondary agency (after God's grace enabling them to do so). This is not works-based salvation due to the process of my "choosing" to follow God, because it is only through a distinct and primary act of grace that I have the ability to follow God. Crap, this is long again. Sorry. I have done parts of my MTS at Anderson School of Theology and at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield).
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jan 26, 2011 15:20:29 GMT -5
This is why (as I previously said) agree with the concept of prevenient grace a la Wesley. God has made the way possible for all with the atonement in terms of sufficiency, but as to efficiency, humans play a role of secondary agency (after God's grace enabling them to do so). This is not works-based salvation due to the process of my "choosing" to follow God, because it is only through a distinct and primary act of grace that I have the ability to follow God. Hmm, to me, this would still be a way of salvation by works, by 'choosing' to follow God. Though the very reason one even has a choice is God's grace, in the end, whether or not one is saved or damned still depends on your own choice. A Calvinist would probably say - and I am inclined to say - that due to total depravity, even given a choice, everybody would still reject God. Perhaps my biggest problem with fee will is that not everybody seems to have an equal choice. We all now the scripture: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. " Nevertheless, or so it seems to me, I have had a much easier choice choosing for Christ than some muslim boy in Afghanistan who might have never even heard the gospel. I understand how election can seem unjust; but if there is a choice for salvation to be made, isn't that equally unfair, since some have had an easy choice and others are expected to make a very difficult choice?
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Jan 26, 2011 16:42:21 GMT -5
This is why (as I previously said) agree with the concept of prevenient grace a la Wesley. God has made the way possible for all with the atonement in terms of sufficiency, but as to efficiency, humans play a role of secondary agency (after God's grace enabling them to do so). This is not works-based salvation due to the process of my "choosing" to follow God, because it is only through a distinct and primary act of grace that I have the ability to follow God. Hmm, to me, this would still be a way of salvation by works, by 'choosing' to follow God. Though the very reason one even has a choice is God's grace, in the end, whether or not one is saved or damned still depends on your own choice. A Calvinist would probably say - and I am inclined to say - that due to total depravity, even given a choice, everybody would still reject God. Perhaps my biggest problem with fee will is that not everybody seems to have an equal choice. We all now the scripture: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. " Nevertheless, or so it seems to me, I have had a much easier choice choosing for Christ than some muslim boy in Afghanistan who might have never even heard the gospel. I understand how election can seem unjust; but if there is a choice for salvation to be made, isn't that equally unfair, since some have had an easy choice and others are expected to make a very difficult choice? Your response is an appropriate one given Calvinist presuppositions. I also agree that if we think in terms of "choosing to follow" then that implies my action saved me. I would put forth a different phrasing that puts less emphasis on choosing. It is the "cliff" metaphor. If I am dangling from a cliff's edge with no way of pulling myself up and a drop that is sure death below me, I am helpless to save myself. If God reaches down and offers to pull me up, then there are two possible outcomes. The first is that I simply let God, through his act of grace, pull me up and save me. The second option would be to see the offer of grace and let go of the branch to which I am holding (with the implication of a certain death after a long fall). The "choice" per se is only partially relevant, and note that the action is entirely passive. I cannot see God at the top of the cliff, think "Wow he's good, I'll follow him," then pull myself up and do so. Nothing I can "do" in the situation will have effect. Rather, I can only rely on God reaching down by his grace and pulling me up. It is not a truly "free" choice even then, because the two choices are to be utterly passive or do something on your own resulting in death. It is similar to how in the garden, Adam and Eve were not actually given a "free choice" in the libertarian sense of the word. They were given a command, and admonished that disobedience to the command would result in death. When I say prevenient grace, the way it would fit into this cliff analogy is that if I'm hanging from the cliff in my total depravity, if I see God and his offer, I will every time let go, take the fall and the death that goes along with it. God will terrify me, and I will hate him. As the mantra of the philosophical satanist goes, "Better to rule myself in hell than to serve in heaven." Prevenient grace comes into play in that God, wanting to redeem his creation, and wanting to reconcile the whole world to himself would open my eyes so that I could see clearly enough to let him pull me out, rather than dropping on purpose as soon as I see him. Again I would say this is not a personal agency in the sense of active "choosing," but rather it would it is God's grace, without which we are helpless enabling everything. Some would say that is still too much agency, but think about the very concept of reconciliation. For something to be reconciled to another something inherently requires the involvement of two parties. I am inately involved in the process of God reconciling me to himself, because without my involvment by definition true reconciliation cannot take place. My role in that reconciliation is completely passive. God initiates, God enables, and God brings to fruition, but without me there to passively be reconciled, God is not reconciling anything to himself. If I let go of the cliff, rejecting God's reconciliation, then I die. If I sit there and let him act, I have done nothing, but rather God has done something. What makes this inherently un-Calvinist in the modern sense is that I (probably most strongly) disagree with the concept of the I in TULIP, the irresistable grace. In theory an all powerful God could forcibly subjugate me to his will. This, however, is not true reconciliation because it is not in any way desired by the recipient. It also directly stands against the descriptions of love in 1 Corinthians. If God is love, and moreover the perfect example thereof, then while God may be all powerful and able to make his grace irresistable he will not act by compulsion, oppression, etc. because that is contrary to his nature. The question then is not one of my action for my salvation, but rather God's offer of grace and action on my behalf and my either passive inactionin which, but not because of which, God will save me, or my action which inherently works to the ends of my own destruction. Is this perhaps more clear? (You don't have to agree with me). As with all metaphors and analogies it is imperfect.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on May 31, 2011 12:39:24 GMT -5
I've seen you say that couple of times now, while you were defending the typically calvinist opinion in things. So I'm wondering, if you're not a calvinist, but you believe in predestination etc., than what are you? Or do you just not want to associate too much with any denomination?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 1, 2011 12:03:32 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Jun 1, 2011 19:42:41 GMT -5
"I think people assume all sorts of things", exactly why I hate -ists and -isms in discussions. People seem to avoid specifics.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 1, 2011 23:21:43 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jun 2, 2011 7:05:11 GMT -5
I agree with you very much.
I think, if there is a sensible discussion to be had about the topic of free will, we should also define free will. I believe in free will in the sense that everybody can make their choice out of their own motives and desires etc. but it seems rather silly to me to call this ´free' will.
After all, what decides what you choose? Your choice will always be determined by your desires, your knowledge on the topic you have to make a choice about, whatever you environment tells you to do etc. In that sense, will is per definition not something that is ´free' but it is determined mostly by who you are.
However, since through the fall mankind is morally corrupted, inclined to do evil, so is their will, since the various factors that decide your will, are corrupted. How can a morally corrupt will, that is inclined to do evil, choose for God? Thus even faith, making the right choice, trusting in Jesus' righteousness rather than your own, trusting in the finished work of the cross rather than your own dead work, is all a work of God, rather than of man.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jun 3, 2011 10:38:09 GMT -5
But if God chooses the few, why does He call the many? This is where logic starts to break down.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 3, 2011 10:57:08 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jun 3, 2011 13:31:36 GMT -5
I would like to say, I've started reading John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion; I'm not very far in it, so I haven't reached the parts where free will, predestination etc. is discussed, but my first impression is that there is a whole lot more God revealing Himself to everybody, offering Himself to everybody, not withholding the possibility of joy for anyone and such things going on than I would have expected there to be. Maybe Calvin isn't a Calvinist depending on whom you ask
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jun 6, 2011 8:54:25 GMT -5
If they didn't receive the call or have the option to respond, how could they be held responsible? Instead they've received a form of grace, but the fact that they reject it leads to harsher punishment But either those who accept the call aren't really accepting it, or those who reject it aren't really rejecting it. In some way or another, the whole thing is fraudulent.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 8, 2011 23:05:25 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jun 10, 2011 13:18:51 GMT -5
The last verse of the passage is the only thing you're getting hung up on. Nothing about it really says that the rich man chooses who gets the wedding clothes.
|
|