BRUCE ALMIGHTY: Atheism's Critique of Arminianism

[drstevej]

Bruce Nolan (Carrey), a television reporter in Buffalo, N.Y.,is discontented with almost everything in life despite his popularity and the love of his girlfriend, Grace (Aniston) . At the end of the worst day of his life, Bruce angrily ridicules and rages against God and God responds. God appears in human form (Freeman) and, endowing Bruce with divine powers, challenges Bruce to take on the big job to see if he can do it any better.

 

Bruce Nolan:       How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God:                     Welcome to my world.

[Gamecock]

What a quaint and stupid thing to presume.

I could not expect higher praise.

[Pahuanui]

Oh, I was unaware that you are an infidel. I'll restructure my arguments appropriately in my future dialogue with you.

Yes, see that you do, gentile.

[Pahuanui]

What a quaint and stupid thing to presume.

I could not expect higher praise.

Oh, don't go limiting yourself, now.

[xzins]

All were funded, but not all bills were submitted for payment.


I used to have that problem with reimbursables in the Army.

[RnMomof7]

And Calvin seems to be supporting a real presence in the wine and bread as well?

Do you remember when we first met? It was a discussion on communion..at that time we were both amazed that Calvin's teaching on communion was actually very close to yours.

[P-Marlowe]

If the Lord has paid the legal penalty for every man

I think it is more accurate to say that he has paid the penalty for every sin. But in order to receive a pardon, you have to accept the terms of the pardon. The terms of salvation are that you must believe and receive. The pardon is there for the taking, but unless you abide by the terms of the pardon, you will be punished for your sins.

Why is there a condemnation for any man? Because the atonement is only effacacious to those who believe. Whosoever believes in him. But you can't get away from the prior term that God loved the world. All men were included in the potential for salvation, but only those who believe are entitled to claim the effect of that love. If-then. Those are the rules. Follow them.

Sufficient for all, effective for some.

[CCWoody]

The Orthodox are the very last people you would find running around trying to save everyone, in fact, we are taught to let God save whom He will and forbidden to proselytize.......that said, there are a few things which become problematic for me.

While I believe the Orthodox church echoes your emphasis on God's majesty and foreknowledge, I am confused by things such as the parable of the "Unsaveable son"( what the Greek translates to instead of prodigal).

As well as other indications that God welcomes those who come at the 11th hour, such as the Paschal sermon of John Chrysostom.

It is difficult to reconcile these kinds of things with a God who would choose some to be damned without any chance at all. Doesn't God also have perfect mercy and love, and how can this be reconciled with the idea of elected as saved? ~ MarMema

Perhaps OP knows which verse to which you are making reference in the Parable of the Prodigal son. I sure don't and so I can't comment on the word in question.

And, I see no problem with an 11th our conversion to Him, whether in their life or the end of the world. Somebody has to be the very last elect and then the return of the Lord in salvation, admiration, and perfect justice upon the rest. I personally plan on meeting the very last saint.

As far as damning anyone without any chance at all, I would have to know the Eastern Orthodox position on Original Sin to understand your perspective.

As for the Calvinist (or, at least my) position, when Adam fell in Eden the entire race fell with him. Thus, all men everywhere without any exception are guilty before God. Otherwise, then how can we say that God was just when the curse of sin has passed to all men unless one falls into the error of Pelagiaus and defines Original Sin as the following of Adam. But, that has been denounced soundly as a heresy.

So, left with the only reasonable choice, in that all men are guilty before God, and even more that all men are conceived as sinners per the prophet David there is no difficulty is saying that God is perfectly just to damn any man without ever offering him a second chance.

Man rebelled against God.
He does not deserve Heaven.
He justly deserves eternal damnation.

Therefore, there is no injustice with God and no affront to His mercy & love for Him to leave him to receive the wages he has earned. And, as the Lord spoke to the disciples about the possibility of John remaining until the return of the Lord, if the Lord should leave a man where he deserves to be, "what is that to us?"

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

"Calvin's preference, then, for theatrum as a figure for the created realm, seems to rest upon his desire for a single metaphor that expresses the ordered beauty of God's self-revelation to man, but which at the same time rejects any theater in which man's own acts are glorified or in which false representations of Deity are depicted. By setting the theatrum Ecclesiae alongside the theatrum mundi, bracketing men and angels in both, Calvin is approaching metaphorically the question of how rational beings can be instruments of God's will, yet operate for their own part as well."

I recently read a book that put it well.

All icons that present themselves as Christ , or Mary etc. that lead one to prayer ..are false false gods , as they are not truly representative of Christ or Mary etc.

.As the author put it that a painting that made no pretense of accuracy (ie a Black or asian or eskimo Jesus ) could be art , but the attempt of an artist to portray Christ as true is making an idol. Because that is how you "picture" God

I once read that the Jews created the Golden calf not as a "different god" but as a symbol of the real God that they could not see. So they chose a form they knew from Egypt yo represent god.

it is that kind of thing.

[CCWoody]

All were funded, but not all bills were submitted for payment. ~ xzins

If the bills were not submitte for payment, then they will never be paid:


• Nowe where remission of these things is, there is no more offering for sinne.
  (Heb 10:18 GB)

The Lord made one offering for sin.
The Lord has sat down.
There is no more offering for sin, just exactly as the Bible declares to us.

If the bill was not submitted for payment, then it is still incumbent upon those for whom payment was not submitted on their behalf to pay. Unfortunately, it is beyond their ability and they will never be released from their prison.

BTW, you have perfectly expressed with your analogy, the Calvinist "L" in the TULIP. There were funds available for all, for every precious drop of blood is infinitely able to satisfy a universe of debts. But, not all bills were submitted [by the Father] for payment.

If you don't quit thinking you will wake up one morning fully in the dark side. LOL!

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

****Its always fun tearing down strawmen ("Christ is sacrificed again in the Mass"; "Real presence is canabalism"; etc.), but it is not useful for understanding.****



The Baltimore Catechism of the Catholic church

263. Q. What is the Mass?

A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.





264. Q. What is a sacrifice?

A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.





265. Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.





266. Q. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same-Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.

The Mass Is The Same Sacrifice As That Of The Cross



The Catechism of Trent


We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the cross. The bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose Sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our Lord: Do this for a commemoration of me.




The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer Sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say: This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body; and thus, acting in the Person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of His body and blood.

This being the case, it must be taught without any hesitation that, as the holy Council (of Trent) has also) explained, the sacred and holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us.

A Catholic Doctrinal Catechism (1876)



Q. Is there then more than one sacrifice propitiatory or expiatory?—has not the sacrifice of the cross alone expiated all sin?

    A. The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar, are one and the same.
    Q. Why then renew every day the same sacrifice? is not the sacrifice of the cross once offered sufficient?
    A. The merits and virtue of the sacrifice of the cross are infinite; but that virtue and these merits must be applied, and this can only be done by certain means.

Recent corrections to the Vatican's New Catechism



367. This paragraph and the corresponding Footnote 188 should be modified to appear as follows:


"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the eucharist are one single sacrifice. 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner ... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."188


188 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14, 27.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

There was also a Patriarch who was *very* Calvinistic, as OP will tell you if he wishes. OP really likes him, I think, just as you like this one who says what you want to hear. But neither is really the mind of the church.

Not to put to fine a point on it, the man you refer to is Cyril Lukar. He is CONDEMNED by name as impious and heretical by Patriarch Dositheos and the Council of Jerusalem, which was subscribed to by all the Orthodox Churches, which is why GOARCH (among others) endorses his Confession as an authoritative dogmatic statement. On the other hand Dositheos is upheld by the Orthodox Churches as ORTHODOX.

"CONFESSION OF DOSITHEOS, PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM 1672 The purpose of this Confession of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, also was to oppose the Roman and Calvinistic influences. It expresses the orthodox spirit of faith in 18 dogmas, with four questions. This Confession was issued in 13 editions in a short period of time. It is considered one of the major pronouncements of the Orthodox Faith, and an important source of Church teaching." (GOARCH website)

"The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles, a positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril’s Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the controverted articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church." (Orthodox Information Center - http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/)

Look, I don't like to tell others what to believe about their own faith, but I think this is pretty clear cut concerning the authority involved.

One thing about using those sites where they come up with a writing here or there to show "unity" between our churches is that they tend to focus on one man or writing. We operate not on authority but on consensus.

The doctrine of Khomiakov again! The Fathers would not have recognized his Protestantizing regarding dogma and authority in the Church, as Fr. Romanides and others have gently pointed out. Just look at how the Councils or a St. Cyril speak! They didn't wait for the rest of the people to get onboard to recognize the truth. Else Ephesus and Chalcedon would never have happened.

Anyhoo ... the point being that this Confession and its ancilliary council is stated by your own Churches to be one of the high points of its dogmatic teaching, rather like we Catholics might say about Trent or Lateran IV or Vatican I.

[Wrigley]

You know, when you look at the word Dave alot, its a funny looking word.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

So then why do you have, in your church, all those bloody things supposedly from the eucharist?

You mean like the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano? Because God manifested the change in subtance in the Eucharist? Did you know the miracle at Lanciano happened during a liturgy celebrated by a Basilian Monk?

If there is not a change in substance in your belief, why are those websites out there with those hearts and stuff that supposedly came into existence from your eucharist?

I'm missing something here. Catholics believe there is a change in substance, from bread and wine to body and blood, with the rest of Christ present by concomittance. Hence transubstantiation.

[connectthedots]

I have answerd the questions and I have made specific cites from Palmer's book. The problem the swarm has is that it seems to not like quotations from the Bible as answers to questions. It also appears that the swarm does not like definitions/discriptions of hyper-Calvinism that come from widely accepted Calvinists such as Spurgeon. But then again, one of the indications of a hyper-Calvinist is one who claims there is no such thing as hyper-Calvinism or hyper-Calvinists. I believe it was Phillip Johnson who made that statement.

And I think you still owe drstevej an explanation in your own words of just how God's love is defined.

drstevj does not think the words of the Bible cannot adequately explain or illustrate the love of God. He apparently thinks something needs to be added to scripture.

If you think you can improve on the Bible, give it a try.

[connectthedots]

Men are free to choose God if they desire Him and those that come He will save, but the unregenerate man will never choose that ..he will always choose what he desires..and it will never be God

will a regenerate man ALWAYS choose God. I recall at least a few members of the swarm stating that not all regenerated men are saved; or at least admitted that some regenerated men might not eventually be saved. How can this be and be consistent with predestination?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I recall at least a few members of the swarm stating that not all regenerated men are saved; or at least admitted that some regenerated men might not eventually be saved.

Name them.

Go on, you've an IQ of 170, you should be able to remember -- name them.

We'll be waiting!! :-)

best, OP

[Alex Murphy]

Yet you have the ~GALL~ to suggest ~I~ have no business on these threads?

What, did I sleep clean through another Saturday again??? I think ctd's now-classic promise is very applicable in deciding who "has business on these threads"...

"I will no longer participate in any discussion related to Calvinism. Everything that can be said has been stated enough times that anyone who has an interest in the subject can simply reread threads posted up to this point in time." ...ctd, 9/1/2003

[CCWoody]

I think it is more accurate to say that he has paid the penalty for every sin. But in order to receive a pardon, you have to accept the terms of the pardon. The terms of salvation are that you must believe and receive. The pardon is there for the taking, but unless you abide by the terms of the pardon, you will be punished for your sins. ~ P-Marlowe

Ah, here is the rub:


Calvinism: Those for which the Lord has made an oblation for sin are no longer guilty. The Atonement itself is sufficient.

Arminianism: Those for which the Lord has made an oblation for sin are still guilty. The Atonement itself is insufficient.

Thank you, Marlowe, for candidly admitting what we Calvinists have stated about the non-Calvinists all along, only to receive the wailing and gnashing of teeth for our efforts. You too, have chosen to abandon the Penal Substitution Atonement and have followed the path of all false teachers who have figured out that something must give in their theology.

For, you have admitted that salvation is ultimately dependent upon what "you have to..." do do secure salvation. IOW, Christ's work upon the cross is unable to save a single soul. Man must complete that work for any salvation to be accomplished. God has done all He can do and now it is up to man.

But, then, man is the one who gets the glory of being the magic that makes salvation happen.

Unfortunately, I'd wager that you are unable to find any credible source for this contract acceptance theory of the Atonement. If you ask me, it sounds very much like what that heretic Grotius taught.

And, it is clearly not scriptural:


• And Iesus answered, and saide vnto him, Simon, I haue somewhat to say vnto thee. And he said, Master, say on. There was a certaine lender which had two detters: the one ought fiue hundreth pence, and the other fiftie: When they had nothing to pay, he forgaue them both: Which of them therefore, tell mee, will loue him most? Simon answered, and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgaue most. And he said vnto him, Thou hast truely iudged.
  (Luk 7:40-43 GB)

Don't you find it the least bit disconcerting to your contract theory of the Atonement that the Lord never mentions any "terms of the pardon" when talking about the forgiveness of their debt?

Unfortunately, unless you can find this phantom "terms of the pardon" clause in the salvation contract in the Scriptures, I must declare what you have given us to be a thing hated.


• By thy precepts I haue gotten vnderstanding: therefore I hate all the wayes of falshoode.
  (Psa 119:104 GB)

Why is there a condemnation for any man? Because the atonement is only effacacious to those who believe. Whosoever believes in him. But you can't get away from the prior term that God loved the world. All men were included in the potential for salvation, but only those who believe are entitled to claim the effect of that love. If-then. Those are the rules. Follow them. ~ P-Marlowe

Before you jump too far afield with your "terms of the pardon" contract fantasy land theology, don't you think you ought to spell it out for us in black and white? Sigh!

But, anyway.... There is a glaringly huge problem with what you are saying. I notice you use a correct word for the Atonement when you say efficatious. Unfortunately, since you have already flatly declared to us that the Atonement itself is INefficatious in that it is unable to save any man for the penalty has been paid by it for "every sin." Else, if the Atonement is efficatious, then you would be a Universalist heretic, fully incuring the Anathema of Revelation upon yourself.

And, even though the very words "Christ died to save all men" seem to have an air of majesty worthy of God, they clearly reveal the ineptitude of a bumbling incompetent. Strip the veneer away and you are left with a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that...
• God the Father is disappointed,...
• that God the Son is dissatisfied,...
• and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated.
To argue that God has purposed to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent.

God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall. It is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely,...
• Surely the rage of man shall turne to thy praise: the remnant of the rage shalt thou restrayne.
  (Psa 76:10 GB)

But, I digress in my disguist of this miserable creature you posit is worthy of praise....

Your contract theory maintains that the inefficacious and resistible grace merely makes salvation possible and the final result of salvation comes NOT from the bestowal of saving grace, which is a ludicrous contradiction, but from the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation.

In order for this theory to be proved there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Reformed theologians position is correct and your "terms of the pardon" crap is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation through faith that he supplies, then salvation is not by grace. Salvation is ultimately by the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.

So, answer me this simple question; is the inequality:



1. the GRACE of God?

2. the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN?

Woody. (with apologies to Pink)

[RnMomof7]

will a regenerate man ALWAYS choose God. I recall at least a few members of the swarm stating that not all regenerated men are saved; or at least admitted that some regenerated men might not eventually be saved. How can this be and be consistent with predestination?

You never heard that from a Calvinist CTD.

Once the grace of God falls on a man his desire is for God and God alone.The unregenerate prefer to be their own Lord.

Those that have been Born again prefer Jesus as Lord and not themselves.

I think you may have misread it..Some men that are currently unregenerate , will be saved in Gods time.

1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

[Wrigley]

He sure thinks he's heard that though.