Posted on 11/13/2008 6:57:12 AM PST by Between the Lines
The truth is that I tire of watching the strenuous gymnastics required to formulate a minimally logical justification of TULIP theology. I mean, really ... the fellow tells me that the only part of the human will affected by the Fall is that part which interfaces with God ... and that our interactions with humans have no bearing on our interactions with God. Ridiculous -- not to mention counter-Scriptural.
The Scriptures make it plain that our choices matter to God. Any theology that denies it is vain. The fact that you're trying so very hard to convince me that they don't ... well, I'm sure you can see the irony of your position.
Simply abandon logic and common sense and embrace sola cauvin and you're golden.
Just consider the context in which Jesus said it. It was the moment of His greatest temptation, and "Thy will be done" was an act of surrender and obedience. We are certainly called to obedience. But the thing is: "obedience" is a meaningless concept absent the possibility of choosing otherwise.
We are not simply "left up to our choices." We pray for God's help and guidance. Prayer is, in part, an act of surrender to Him. It is a way in which we enter into relationship with Him. It is one of the ways in which we return the love He has for us. But none of that makes sense unless we have a choice in the matter.
Well, Mr. P, it's not really an "abandonment" of logic. Within the limited scope of TULIP theology, "God is sovereign, the whole thing actually makes a great deal of sense. And it's true that God is sovereign.
The problem is, equally Scriptural concepts such as sin, love, and atonement do not really make sense in a context that is limited to consideration of God's sovereignty. While we can acknowledge it, we must also acknowledge how Scripture makes clear that we are responsible for what we do -- and thus the TULIP version of "God's Sovereignty" is obviously false.
It makes for an interesting version of Pascal's wager: if our choices really don't matter, then it makes no difference whether or not we behave as if they do. But if our choices do matter....
I personally find great amusement in the comfort some derive from the mass delusion that they have no free will.
Amazing.
***I personally find great amusement in the comfort some derive from the mass delusion that they have no free will.
Amazing.***
It’s a psychological state in which one absolves one’s self of any responsibility for one’s actions, and at the same time, one has one’s salvation pulled out of the bingo ball.
The perfect end for the high school student council - those who self identify as better than any other with any merit whatsoever.
Amen! I'm reminded of the magicians who had to acknowledge the power of God or the Pharisees who listen to the words of Christ but could not understand it because they were not His sheep. Christians are called to preached the gospel but it is God's Spirit that quicken us and gives us the wisdom from above to led us to salvation. And, just as important, God's Spirit sustains us to continuously understand His word.
Only the believer can say the Lord’s Prayer, “thy will be done”, as communication between the Father and His child. The unbeliever’s recitation is mere superstition. Choices of the believer and unbeliever relate only to rewards; the believer’s-positive; the unbeliever’s-mitigation of the negative, but still negative.
Paul is clear that natural man cannot make a choice for God without a work of God preceding in the heart of the unbeliever. The unbeliever cannot know God.
1Cr 2:9-14, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”
1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
***Vines spoke next on John 3:16, a verse he described as the gospel in a nutshell. The verse indicates God’s love is global, sacrificial, personal and eternal, he said.***
It is impossible for one to be NON-Calvinist and defend this statement. Oh, granted, they can defend the global & sacrificial part, but they can never defend the personal and eternal part.
For, if the sacrifice was PERSONAL and ETERNAL for a man that perishes, then, either the blood of Christ was insufficient or God killed two men for the same crime. Pick your poison, but the defect would be either in the Son or the Father.
But, we are Calvinist and we believe if the Son of man makes you free, then you are free indeed.
******Vines spoke next on John 3:16, a verse he described as the gospel in a nutshell. The verse indicates God’s love is global, sacrificial, personal and eternal, he said.***
It is impossible for one to be NON-Calvinist and defend this statement. Oh, granted, they can defend the global & sacrificial part, but they can never defend the personal and eternal part.***
That’s why Christians would never defend this statement. We would rather defend the words of Christ rather than the words of contemporary men.
Interesting, Mark. What adjective(s) give you heartburn regarding the Atonement:
#1. global
#2. sacrificial
#3. personal
#4. eternal
***Interesting, Mark. What adjective(s) give you heartburn regarding the Atonement:
#1. global
#2. sacrificial
#3. personal
#4. eternal***
The philosophy behind them gives me the heartburn.
Calvin developed the idea of penal substitution in which Christ pays God for the sins of individual people and that is all that there is. This goes against most of Gospel teaching as well as the teaching of the early Church.
Surprisingly, Wiki provides a reasonable explanation:
The classic Anselmian formulation of the satisfaction view should be distinguished from penal substitution. Both are forms of satisfaction doctrine in that they speak of how Christ’s death was satisfactory, but penal substitution and Anselmian satisfaction offer different understandings of how Christ’s death was satisfactory. Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ’s death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ’s surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ’s death is substitutionary; he pays the honour instead of us. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ’s death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, “The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow.”[1] By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.
Another distinction must be made between penal substitution (Christ punished instead of us) and substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers for us). Both affirm the substitutionary and vicarious nature of the atonement, but penal substitution offers a specific explanation as to what the suffering is for: punishment.[citation needed]
Nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine teach substitutionary atonement. Indeed, the doctrine was clearly articulated by the prophet Isaiah in 800 BC. However, the specific interpretation differed as to what this suffering for sinners meant. The early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine taught that through Christ’s suffering in humanity’s place, he overcame and liberated us from death and the devil.
If we focus on some other adjectives of Calvinist theology: exclusionary, limited, irresistable; and also the reversal of cause and effect such as the practices of the Beatitudes and the perseverence of the saints, that expands my objections to what I consider to be an overwhelming level.
More later, but let it not be said that the core of the Reformation was the restoration of the Gospel itself.
***More later, but let it not be said that the core of the Reformation was the restoration of the Gospel itself.***
We certainly would not say it since the Gospel is the core of Catholicism.
We would say that politics and power played a major role and in the end ensured the success of the Reformation, such as it is. The core of the Reformation was the establishment of Christian Humanism (precedessor of current liberal thought) and the enticement of the creation of individual theology, essentially reversing the cause and effect of God and Creation.
Actually, the quote was “...let it NOT be said that...”
And I’m fine with that. In fact I agree, since the statement is false.
Am I missing something?
***Actually, the quote was “...let it NOT be said that...”
And I’m fine with that. In fact I agree, since the statement is false.
Am I missing something?***
Perhaps Lord Calvinus has had an epiphany of a magnitude that Paul did. We pray that God will change his merciful heart and ignore all calls to predetermination and extend His Grace to all men and not just the student council of 30 years ago.
At any rate, Lord Calvinus has confirmed that the Gospel is NOT at the core of the Reformation, which, of course, it is not. Based upon Reformed theology, the words of Jesus do appear rather apocryphal. Perhaps we can assist.
Don’t presume that my mistake is confirmation that the gospel is not at the core of the reformation cause you would be found to be a bearer of a false witness. If I understand Catholicism, unconfessed sin can send you to hell. And, that would be a shame just to try and score points with a Calvinist. ;^)
***Don’t presume that my mistake is confirmation that the gospel is not at the core of the reformation cause you would be found to be a bearer of a false witness.***
The core of the Reformation is the drive for everyone to be their own Pope. The Reformation only succeeded because the German princes and later, the Northern princes were able to use it to sweep to power and sack monasteries and Church properties. That is NOT false witness; it is well documented.
***I understand Catholicism, unconfessed sin can send you to hell.***
It’s only Biblical; so I have to apologize to you for adhering to the Bible.
***And, that would be a shame just to try and score points with a Calvinist. ;^)***
Perish the thought.
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.