Posted on 08/30/2004 7:37:41 PM PDT by Nevski
From "Orthodoxy":
"The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth. Their position is quite reasonable; nay, in a sense it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny bit is infinitely circular. But there is such a thing as a mean infinity, a base and slavish eternity. *It is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether sceptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity. When they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with his tail in his mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself.*"
"This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chief mark and element of insanity; we may say in summary that it is reason used without root, reason in the void. The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think at the wrong end. And for the rest of these pages we have to try and discover what is the right end. But we may ask in conclusion, if this be what drives men mad, what is it that keeps them sane? By the end of this book I hope to give a definite, some will think a far too definite, answer. But for the moment it is possible in the same solely practical manner to give a general answer touching what in actual human history keeps men sane. Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. *As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.*"
Commentary at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9094/againstcalvinism.html
Against Calvinism
A critique of the greatest heresy.
"When tallying who the greatest heretic in Christian history might be, or at least, the greatest heretical doctrine, there are certainly a few sterling examples. Some might start with Saint Paul himself, oft cited as the originator of Christianity. It was Paul who, with his scholarly Jewish mind and particular spiritual vexations that turned the experience of Christ into a full religion. But I think one needs to better understand Paul's context to know his motivations and to read his works effectively and fruitfully. . . ."
"If I were obligated to pick one, which I guess in truth is presumptuous of me, then I would have to pick John Calvin. The influence of his life - from French lawyer to Reformation theologian to facist Genevan politician - may not have been so great. But the reverberations from his theology echo through history to our present state where Christianity may be entirely subsumed by his spiritual heirs (or "errs", as the case may be)."
"Perhaps the most frustrating thing about Calvin is that he almost got it right. He understood, correctly, that because of sin and human finitude, we cannot be active agents in our own salvation. The only active agent is God Himself, calling us through grace to be united to Him. God chooses to save us, we do not save ourselves by works or choices."
"Unfortunately, Calvin treats the subject the only way, I suppose, a lawyer could treat the subject. Martin Luther, who had the roughly same idea about salvation, was an Augustinian monk and therefore, rather than being true Reformation thinker, was much closer to Mediaeval ideas about God and spirituality. The Mediaeval period was one motivated very much by internal spiritual experience: the personal experiene of the Divine that lead one to internal transformation. In touch personally and intimately with God, the supreme Love of God becomes very clear. Indeed, Love becomes understood not merely as an attribute of God, but as a synonym for God."
"Calvin is very much a Reformation thinker, however. When the Black Death ended the Mediaeval era, the intimacy of God seemed very far off. As a reaction, society founded the Modern era, based on the principle of externality... Internal experience did not save people from the plague, so they instead sought to understand all the forces outside themselves, pursuing external knowledge. The promise of the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment was that through external knowledge, we could gain control over the forces affecting us. Indeed, the last 600 years of civilization have been naught but an immature knee-jerk reaction to the Black Death."
"The Reformation was not so certain that we could obtain control. It did, however, maintain the emphasis on external knowledge. God was just as far off for the Reformers as He was for the Scientific Revolutionaries. Luther's great objection was to any form of righteousness, such as the sale of indulgences, that did not lead to internal change and intimacy with God. Calvin responded that your internal state is irrelevant. His objection was to what he perceived to be a misinterpreted set of rules."
"Let a lawyer interpret Scripture and this is what you get. Rather than view Scripture as testimony to the faith of those that had gone on before us, the love affair of these writers with the Word, Calvin viewed Scripture as a legal document in need of proper interpretation. This legalistic approach further infects his theology: just as the Bible is a legal codebook, God is a transcendent Judge, with Whom and regarding Whom Love has no meaning."
"Calvin's great heresy, then, is divesting God of Love. In the entirety of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the word "love" only appears twice, and both times it is in reference to the love we owe God. Without Love, Calvin reduces God to brute power concepts and legalistic approaches."
"God as the active agent in salvation ceases to be the transendent Being of passionate love for humanity, abiding patiently with each person until they eventually find their solace in Him... Instead, He is replaced by a version of Himself that chooses who is saved and who is damned without rhyme or reason except to exert His own power. Everything is oriented towards God's glory, His every action to assert His glory, our every religious devotion to praise that glory. He is an egotistical God, absolutely corrupted by His own absolute power."
"Unfortunately, the reaction of Christianity to Calvin was disasterously wrong-headed. What ended up happening with the Evangelical movement was the dismissal of those parts that Calvin actually got right and the retention of that which he got wrong. The Evangelicals insisted, as they do to this day, that humans are the only active agents in salvation. God has nothing to do with it, but instead, one is saved by "making a decision for Christ". They sought in this Decision Theology a gracious escape from Calvin's loveless God of arbitrary damnation."
"But because these reactionaries were also products of the Modern era, they kept the emphasis on external knowledge. They still insist upon reading Scripture as a legal codebook in need of proper interpretation and therefore continue to view God as an essentially loveless Judge. God's Love, once exaulted by mystics and theologians as God's primary and defining characteristic, has been reduced to subservience to God's Justice. Theirs is a God who imposes punishment upon people for breaking His rules, and Love once again has been subordinated and effectively eliminated as a characteristic of God's at all."
"In many Evangelical minds, God's Love is expressed by His desire to committ violence against us. Yet it is also expressed by God providing the legal loophole by which we can avoid His violence: Jesus Christ. Luther might object that Decision Theology does not cause inward change nor breed internal experience, but is rather a way of externally controlling and compelling God to save us through a legal clause."
"As I suggested at the outset, Calvinism in-and-of itself is not as influential as Calvin's Modernist approach to the faith. This approach, carried on in Evangelicalism, now threatens to subsume all of Christianity. Through media communiations, the message of Evangelicalism has managed to spread, convincing millions of people that theirs is the only true and valid form of Christianity. Even those who do not believe in Christianity have accepted that Evangelicalism is the "true" Christianity and often have disdain for those Christians who do not conform to Evangelical standards. This is what I mean when I say that Calvinism is the greatest heresy the Church has ever faced."
"How would I respond to the Calvinist, though? Not easily, since Calvinism by nature reduces the framework of discussion and has justified itself in tidy dogmatic packages. Calvinism only allows theological discourse in terms of dissecting a legal code, analyzing Scripture chapter-and-verse to determine the correct dogmas. Suggest that God is Love, and a Calvinist would ask 'what Bible verse says that?'"
"If one were to bring up any number of the verses that describe God's Love for humanity, then these would be neatly disposed of in favour of a theology built on other passages of judgement and wrath and power. Calvinism is a very, very tight doctrine... Coiled up as tight as a snake eating its own tail."
"Catholic journalist, columnist and humourist G.K. Chesterton once went about describing lunacy as a circle that is just not wide enough. There may be no way, logically, to prove to an asylum inmate that they are not the rightful heir to the throne of England. The horror of lunacy, he insisted, was not that the subject has lost all their Reason, but that they have lost everything but their Reason... They have tidied everything up in a perfect logical circle, impenetrable to attempts to puncture with Reason."
"Chesterton's solution? 'Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable MARK of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air, to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside the suffocation of a single argument.'"
"In the same manner, one might respond to the Calvinist that their theology make a quite tidy circle, but it is a very small circle. Chesterton even speaks specifically of Calvin when making his case of logic being the mother of lunacy: 'Perhaps the strongest case of all is this: that only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and the white flat lilies of the Ouse. He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin.'"
"There is a circle quite larger than the circle of Calvinism. It is the circle that understands the infinity of God's Love. It is the circle that reads Scripture and, without needing or necessarily being able to point to a single proof text, recognizes that the message of the Gospel is Love. It is the circle that allows Scripture to move us to an inward change and internal experience of God rather than forcing it to feed back on itself as its own object."
"It is a circle that is able to repsond to perhaps the grestest objection of the heresy - the lunacy - of Calvinism: When asked about the Love of God, His supreme and sacrificial Love for humanity that caused Him to send His Son to die so that we may be united to Him, His Love which created us for Love and His Love which sustains us for that cause, many Calvinists state that it is presumptuous and arrogant of us to think that we are so important. Why should we be so significant that God should Love us so much? The response is simply that we do not know why God should care so much about us in our utter insignificance, but He does, and that is grace."
Nevski http://www.novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/
You are totally wrong about everything said by Marlowe.
It's not my job to defend him against anyone who cannot read what he writes, but my sense is that many simply miss punctuation, context, and modifiers.
On reflection, there is a nuance in the word "salvation." I could see making that sentence "the point remains that it IS a method for achieving eternity."
"Way of Salvation" suggests that someone else assists. In this we're talking about someone perfectly "doing" the law of God, and therein, earning their own way into heaven.
Sorry for my accounting error, I think the post was actually 351 (in response to 350).
I was not attempting to be contentious - merely curious about your understanding of salvation. I also noticed you answered another message after my posting, so I assumed you had read mine. From your postings here, I presumed that you followed a theology of free will. I rarely come in contact with those of that belief and wanted to learn more of this system of theology.
I do not claim to be a Calvinist but I do align with many of Jean Calvin's teachings, so if you choose to label me a Calvinist, that's up to you. I do believe that God is ultimately soveriegn and that nothing occurs in this world without his permission. It is hard for me to think otherwise of the Creator and Lord of all.
I too look to Scripture for all revelation of God's character, will, and relationship to His creation. I beleive that Scripture is inerrant and inspired by God. I believe that Scripture teaches that God is a God of love, as you suggest. But love is merely one of Gods many attributes - although it IS a very significant aspect of His character.
When we consider God's love, we cannot forget that His love does not contradict other aspects of His character such as justice, wisdom, omniscience, or compassion. When we say that God is love, it may not always result in a pleasant result from certain perspectives. A perfect example of this is God's love for His chosen people, the Jews. When God imposed the plagues upon the Egyptians in order to free his chosen people, that was an outpouring of His love toward the Jews. You may argue that only Pharoh really deserved God's punishment, but that was not God's will - he punished all the Egyptian people for the sins of their leader.
We rarely understand God's perfect and divine will for His creation. As referenced earlier in this thread,
Romans 9:20: On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
I prefer to trust God in His perfect wisdom even if His decisions appear cavalier from my perspective. The alternative that you purport is that we possess some intrinsic will within us that is prone to choose God. Obviously not all men have this intrinsic will because not all excercise this choice. So I would propose our views are not that far apart. You have choosen God, and all others who have chosen God, have been given some desire for God. I would propose that desire comes only from our Lord and Creator.
I do believe that God is ultimately soveriegn and that nothing occurs in this world without his permission.
So do we. Our differences in theology are that "his permission" seem to be defined differently. From what I can see of your posts, "His permission" is active--He expressly guides every single action by every single person for their entire life.
Our concept of "His permission" is that He allows us to make our own decisions. He can cope with free will and still remain sovereign--He is God, after all.
God created Man "in His own image." That includes the free will we all have. God has free will, thus He gave that to us. And before people start asking me "Can God sin?", the operative word there is "can." Yes, He can. He wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise. Will He sin? Never.
From a calvinist perpsective (I know you claim you are not, but I lack a better term right now), what is the purpose of life? Why are we here? Why make everyone go through this time on earth? Why the Great Commission? Why the Great Sacrifice of Christ? I ask these questions, because it would seem that if God was treating us like puppets, pulling every string to control our every action and decision, there's no poiint to life, the Great Commission, or anything else here. God will save whom He chooses--why preach the Gospel, if He's going to save them anyway?
God saves those he chooses to save. Period.
If God chooses to save children, then He will save children. Jesus seems to say in John 9 that those to whom sight is never given are not charged with sin. But Romans chapter 1 states clearly that all men are given sight at some point and therefore "man" is without excuse.
Now if you want to be nitpicky, then an argument could be made from Romans 1 that not only children are excused, but also women. I don't go that far. I go as far as seeing that Romans chapter 1 lays the law on the hearts of all men and thus all men are responsible for choosing to obey the calling of God. That of course assumes that God must call all men.
I do not claim to be a Calvinist but I do align with many of Jean Calvin's teachings,
That is interesting. There is another poster who frequents here that claims he is not a Calvinist, but on further inspection he is a five point calvinist in every one of his posts and IMO tends not only towards Calvinism, but appears to align himself with many of the definitions of a hyper-Calvinist (and will probably throw a hissy fit because I even said the word "hyper-Calvinist" since he thinks that is something no Calvinist could ever be.
Well, I am not an Arminian. So perhaps between the two of us we can work out a theology that offends everyone.
I do believe that God is ultimately soveriegn and that nothing occurs in this world without his permission. It is hard for me to think otherwise of the Creator and Lord of all.
Dittos. Nothing could possibly happen at all unless it is, in fact, ordained of God. But there is a big differentiation in my mind between cause and ordain. Ordain can mean cause, but it can also mean ratify. Thus while God can cause men to believe in him or even sin, God can also let both good and bad things happen and place his stamp of ultimate approval, as it is all in conjunction with God's ultimate plan (which he has ordained by and through his foreknowledge).
I too look to Scripture for all revelation of God's character, will, and relationship to His creation. I beleive that Scripture is inerrant and inspired by God. I believe that Scripture teaches that God is a God of love, as you suggest. But love is merely one of Gods many attributes - although it IS a very significant aspect of His character.
Ditto
When we consider God's love, we cannot forget that His love does not contradict other aspects of His character such as justice, wisdom, omniscience, or compassion. When we say that God is love, it may not always result in a pleasant result from certain perspectives.
Ditto
We rarely understand God's perfect and divine will for His creation. As referenced earlier in this thread,
Not rarely, but NEVER. It is not our place to understand his will, but to accept it.
I prefer to trust God in His perfect wisdom even if His decisions appear cavalier from my perspective.
Ditto
The alternative that you purport is that we possess some intrinsic will within us that is prone to choose God. Obviously not all men have this intrinsic will because not all excercise this choice.
I don't believe I have ever said that. There is no "intrinsic" will in man that seeks after God. It is God's grace which is irresistibly thrust all men which allows them the capacity and the opportunity to positively respond to God's will. What is intrinsic in man is the urge to reject God and to reject his grace. To those who accept his grace, then his grace was irresistible to them, to those who ultimately reject his grace, then to them it was resistible. Amaziningly enough we are all different, we are not all robots. We are not actors on a stage reading from some script prepared by God. We are created in the image of God and in that sense we have a certain power over our destiny. God can save us. We can ensure our damnation.
You have choosen God, and all others who have chosen God, have been given some desire for God. I would propose that desire comes only from our Lord and Creator.
I was chosen by God. I merely responded postively to his saving grace. Had I died rejecting it, then it is clear that God would not have chosen me -- even from the foundation of the earth.
Now for a bit of my theology.
T-- Total Depravity -- all have sinned. None are righteous.
U -- Unconditional Election -- Not possible. There must be a condition otherwise it is arbitrary. God is not Arbitrary.
L-- Limited Atonement-- Not Biblical, but a necessary linchpin to hold together the other four point.
I -- Irresistible Grace -- You bet. It is irresistibly thrust upon all men. It is, however, rejectible grace. If you receive it you will be saved, if you reject it, you will be damned. But the same grace which results in one man's salvation may result in the next man's damnation.
P-- Perserverence of the Saints -- Eternal life is eternal. Once you have it, you can't lose it. Otherwise it is not eternal.
.
My theology is a work in progress. The day I can say "I perfectly understand God" is the day God will take me home to ensure that the secret doesn't get out. :-)
Amen.
The day I can say "I perfectly understand God" is the day God will take me home to ensure that the secret doesn't get out. :-)
Kinda. God isn't a "secret" as far as I'm concerned. It's just that we, as mere creations, cannot understand God--not that He doesn't want us to.
"the reason I did not care for your list of saved/unsaved is because I am not going to put God in a box"
Sorry that it would offend you. I know you don't wish to limit God nor what He can do but He certainly does have His limits. God cannot violate His character. He does not have total free will in the sense that He must abide by His own nature. Can God lie? Can God destroy Himself? Can God change His mind? Scripture says He can do none of these, so there is a "box" that He fits into. I don't presume to know the mind of God nor do I expect to understand why He does some things - except that it is for His own glory. But He does tell us a great deal about Himself, His Son, and His Spirit in His Holy Scripture.
It is our obligation to know God as well as possible. He provides a means for us to do so by giving us an intellect, His Word, and His Spirit. If we are His children, God demands a personal relationship with us. In order to develop this relationship, we must know God to the best of our ability - just as we would in any human relationship. I don't think that trying to understand who God is and how God acts is akin to putting Him "in a box".
Yes, but by requesting that I agree or disagree with your list in post 351, that is what you were trying to get me to do. To put God is a box.
Would you be willing to answer yes or no to your own list?
Since you are not a Calvinist by your own admssion and I am not an Arminian, lets see where we agree.
Would you agree that God saves those that he chooses to save and no others?
Would that be a good starting point?
You have used the TULIP as an acrostic to roughly describe your theological understanding. Though I don't care much for that approach, I know a number of Calvinists and Reformers have used it in the past. It seems as good a place to start as any...
Here is yours repeated:
T-- Total Depravity -- all have sinned. None are righteous.
U -- Unconditional Election -- Not possible. There must be a condition otherwise it is arbitrary. God is not Arbitrary.
L-- Limited Atonement-- Not Biblical, but a necessary linchpin to hold together the other four point.
I -- Irresistible Grace -- You bet. It is irresistibly thrust upon all men. It is, however, rejectible grace. If you receive it you will be saved, if you reject it, you will be damned. But the same grace which results in one man's salvation may result in the next man's damnation.
P-- Perserverence of the Saints -- Eternal life is eternal. Once you have it, you can't lose it. Otherwise it is not eternal.
It was a bit ambiguous but appears that you agree with T, I, P and grudgingly L. Even your agreement with I seems to be conditional and not what I would normally categorize as irresistable grace. Your strongest disagreement is U, the idea that God elects those whom He saves.
As I have posted previously, I believe there is more than one type of grace (common grace and saving grace). The saving grace is irresistable (man must respond) but the common grace is that which maintains some semblance of beauty, restraint, and happiness in the lives of sinners and believers alike. Your idea that God's grace damns an unbeliever does not seem to agree with Scripture as far as I can tell. Can you give scriptural basis for this belief?
The aspects of TULIP that I support (in general) is T, U, I, and P. The limited atonement is traditionally misunderstood so I prefer to use a statement more like:
Christ death is sufficient to cover all sins but efficacious only for those who God calls.
We seem to disagree primarily on the topic of election. I don't understand how you can adhere to total depravity and yet not accept election. If man is totally depraved, it seems to follow that man cannot choose God on his own. There is a substantial amount of scripture that supports the idea of an elect (it is used at least 8 times in the NASB) and that Man is dead in his sin. I would admit that these are hard truths, but they are scriptural and follow a logical understanding of God's sovereignty.
The hardest aspect of this view is the issue of sin. Where did it come from? Why did God allow it to enter this world? If He is truly sovereign, does it imply that God is the "author" of sin?
I will end here because I wish to get your response before continuing the discourse. It may be that we have much more to discuss before touching on the issues of sin...
ooops discussing private freepmail is a no no -
I didnt "hope" - I merely asked -
Warmoose was a really well thought brilliant poster
I saw shades of him in you
I still do -
Now......to my understanding - discussing private freeps without the consent of the other is not allowed - hence my ping to the mod
You are correct that I do not believe in "unconditional" election. God must have a reason to elect one man for salvation and another for damnation. I believe the bible teaches that the condition is Belief in Christ foreknown from the foundation of the earth.
As far as common grace and Saving Grace goes, I think that the term Common Grace as used by Calvinists has nothing to do with soteriology, but has to do with God's patience with sinners. Fine, if that is Common Grace, then I have no issue that there are two kinds of grace. however when it comes to soteriology and when it comes to the issue of salvation, there is only one grace and that grace is extended to all men and the same grace that will save one man who receives it will damn the person who rejects it. This seems to make the most sense both from a scriptural standpoint and from a logical standpoint.
I believe it is very well expressed by Donald Bloesch as follows:
It is still possible, however, to speak of irresistible grace even in the case of the one who falls away from grace. Grace still triumphs but now in the form of wrath and judgment. The love of God necessarily becomes destructive to the one who rejects this love, but it is never withdrawn from the sinner, even from the apostate. He meets his deserved retribution not despite the grace of God but in the face of grace and at the hands of grace.
When we say that grace is irresistible we mean not only the first entry of grace into our lives but also the fact that grace cannot ultimately be defeated. Grace is irresistible in the sense that we cannot act either for, with, or against it until it is showered upon us. We are dead apart from grace (Eph. 2:5). We can swim against the stream of grace but only on the basis of grace and then only for a time. It is true that God may withhold his grace from us, but this too is only for a time. God's grace cannot be permanently thwarted; it will finally have its way in the life of man, though this may mean man's condemnation and not his salvation. Perhaps it is more proper to speak of efficacious or effectual grace than irresistible grace since man, even after having been exposed to grace ever and again, inexplicably but incontestably descends into the depths of absurdity and tries to defy the grace of God. But when in his folly he denies his salvation, grace is still triumphant though in a different way, and when he gladly acknowledges the blessing assured to him, he does so because he is irresistibly drawn to the love and light of Jesus Christ.
Against the older Calvinists we maintain that grace will eventually be given to all, that it is not reserved for a select group of the elect. Against the Arminians we contend that grace cannot be permanently thwarted or resisted, that grace is inescapable and unrelenting. Against them too we hold that grace does not simply dispose the corrupt will toward the good but actually transforms man's will so that he seeks to do the good. Our position is that grace is both universal and sovereign even where people defy it.
Donald G. Bloesch (1978) Essentials of Evangelical Theology Vol 1 page 206-207
Now to get to your question of why is there sin. Sin is rebellion against the will of God. It is a natural outgrowth of free will. If God created man without the ability to rebel against him, there would be no sin. But God did not create man that way. Now if God has plotted out each action of man from the foundation of the earth and each action of man was in full accordance with the will of God, then no matter what a man did it would not be sin.
Thus it is impossible for sin to exist unless man is truly free to act independent and in opposition to God's will. If it is God's decree that a man act in a certain manner and he acts in that manner, then he is not sinning, but he is doing God's declared will. He is not rebelling against God, but is acting in concert with Him.
So if God commands men not to steal, then we must assume that God really really does not want anyone to steal. And likewise if God commands all men to believe in Jesus Christ, then we must assume that God really really wants all men to believe in Jesus Christ. The fact that they don't proves that either God is a liar, or that men truly have free will.
BTW if you are not a "Calvinist" what are you? Are you a four pointer?
Actually, PM I found Total Depravity to be the linchpin, not Limited Atonement. In fact there are many Calvinists such as Dr. Steve who do not hold to a strict adherence to Limited Atonement. There is much debate on this within the Calvinists circles but I never found it to be much of an issue.
But as for Total Depravity I find the Calvinists are ALL in agreement. Everyone else (RCCers, Orthodox, and non-Calvinist Protestants) are on the other side of the fence. Total Depravity is where you'll find the argument on "free will" at. No one wants to admit that man is truely corrupted and cannot help himself except for the Calvinist. It is through an understanding of Total Depravity that one can understand Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. Unconditional Election is just an extension of Total Depravity. Since we are unable to make the choice God chooses. It's really NOT Unconditional Election you disagree with or fail to understand. It's Total Depravity. This is the lynchpin of Calvinism and its what separates us from Arminian thinking.
In fairness to Pilgrim, I remember reading this discussion on another post. While there may have been some mail passed back and forth of which I am not aware, it was clearly part of the discussion of one of the posts that I was perusing.
Rarely do I do so nor do I like putting myself in the middle of these types of discussions, but I thought I would ping the Moderator to ensure the record is accurate. My apologies to the Mod who is a busy person here.
thats accurate
it was clearly part of the discussion of one of the posts that I was perusing.
links please - you guys squeal like a bad wheelbearing when we make an assertion without a link - and such a statement can not be construed as an opinion - so please, the link
Besides - he plainly referred to the email - not any supposed post Oh, I see. So that personal message you sent me......
so cut the nonsensical diversion by stating it was posted and quit pinging me to this thread
by your simple assertion ? ......links please
You guys have lamb basted everyone of us for not providing links in the past-
If youre going to make an assertion that the record be factual - please provide a link where the warmoose / pilgrim similarity was discussed openly on the threads
post 307 ought to be deleted and thepilgrim reprimanded for discussing private freeps openly
So...... Christs blood washed only some sins? -
to its conclusion, God created and allowed the other sin to remain (sarcasm) - this one really steams my dumplings ;)- because whats happening is that on the base level, they are limiting the ability of Christ.
For the most part, I would agree that Total Depravity is the most important point, However, Edwin Palmer stated that if any point of TULIP were wrong, then they are all wrong.
Also, P-Marlowe did not say the 'L' was THElynch pin, he said it is A lynch pin.
I hope you don't think I was arguing for limited atonement. I was pointing out that for Calvinism it is a necessary component even though it is obviously unbilical. I should have said "Limited Atonement -- No way Jose". My argument is that the Unconditional Election and irresistible grace elements are tied together with this unbiblical teaching. But as CTD pointed out, if Limited Atonement is not true, then all of the other petals fall off the tulip. In that sense it is the lynchpin that holds all the other tulip leaves on the stem.
I stated in an earlier post on this thread it’s my suspicion that there has been a coordinate effort among a few to bait the Calvinists on this board and then ask for their suspension or banning. An accusation that I don’t make lightly nor can I prove. However, you admitted as much in post #305 and a few others never denied the baiting part-only to say “they [the Calvinists] were warned”.
It’s too bad I don’t have access to the Free Republic database to do the kind of research it would take to verify my suspicions. There is an admitted hatred among a few here who would like nothing better than to rid key Calvinists from this board of which many have already been run off. I suspect the statistics of the religious affiliation of people who have been banned or suspended would bear my suspicions out. I also suspect those calling for those suspensions and bans are limited to a select few. Perhaps to a few who are involved in these conversations? You being one as you yourself admitted.
I’m not going to waste the Religious Moderator time with such petty squabbling nor am I’m going to request the type of research that would be needed to determine who is involved in this. I’m only pinging him/her because of your ping to the RM with your post. (as habit I try to ping all who were pinged to me).
Personally since verifying this would probably be next to impossible I would like to see the banned Calvinists restored and as a sign of good faith I would like to hear you say the same. If you want to call for a further banning or suspension of more Calvinists on this website then I suggest we ping Jim and ask him for the type of analysis I proposed earlier. I think it would be most revealing.
Otherwise we’ll leave it at the following verse:
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
You're right. PM did state it was "a" lynch pin. But I'm not sure I would agree with that. There are discussions among the Calvinists between Limited and Universial Atonement. Dr. Steve posted an interesting article on the two veiws. Die hard 5-pointers would insist you must believe in Limited Atonement.
While I believe in Limited Atonement and believe the scriptures bear this out, I don't see it as a lynch pin. Whether you believe in Limited Atonement or Universial Atonement everyone would agree that the blood of Christ ONLY covers those whom He saved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.