This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 02/07/2013 8:58:03 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 01/16/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by marshmallow
General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "
And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.
Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".
The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
Actually, the arminianism we know is the product of arminius’ followers after his death, the remonstrants. Personally, I don’t think he would have gone where they went. Every time he went before a tribunal he came out in the clear. They didn’t defrock him. Those later followers were repudiated.
DrE, if she were still here, would probably argue with me the fine points of this, but the fact remains that Arminus never wanted to leave and his opponents were never able to get him kicked out.
I think he was Heidelberg instead of Westminster, but I’ve never been able to tell the difference.
IIRC the Heidelburg Confession asserted the total Soverignty of God in the selection of the elect, but unlike the Westminster Confession, the Heidelburg Confession did not categorically deny that the methodology used by God included some aspect of foreknowledge.
It might be a different confession I am thinking about, but it’s late and I’m lazy.
It’s late and I’m lazy, too, but let me say this about Heidelberg....they have the most awesome street scene in the heart of the city below the castle. It’s a pure delight. Musicians, artists, jugglers, craftsmen. And don’t forget the gasthausen and the beer.
It’s a fun college town. Maybe their confession was a bit more fun, too. I don’t really know.
:>)
BTW, did I mention the dunkles Weizenbier?
Go here: http://www.brauhaus-vetter.de/html/unser_bier.html
FWIW-My views on Arminius has soften over the years. I'm not quite sure if he understood the error that he was portraying - the results of what you're seeing with the "I have decided..." It is extremely subtle. Even Augustine taught this until he was confronted by the Reformed Cyprian with the question, "What do you have that you have not been given?" It was this question that made Augustine burn his writings (not a small feat in those days) and linked "free will" with Pelagius. I personally believe that Arminius was dupe by the counter-Protestant fraction of the time, but there is no proof of this except that he never left Calvinism.
Its hard to see how someone is morally responsible for preprogrammed behavior.
Yes, I agree. But Adam would never know what love truly is while he was in the garden where he was surround by love. It was only when it was no more that he knew what he'd lost. And we know this grieved the Father to have to show Adam this for He tells us that it "grieved Him that He made man" in Gen 6. Not that God was sorry about His creation but the road to Calvery was just as hard on God as it was on us as difficult as that is to understand.
We are God's children and He is our Father in a very real sense of the term.
I can debate Armenians and Calvinists and both at their extremes are in error. Bottom line is that Christ died for all and that the invitation goes to all. The fatalistic attitude that each mans destiny is completely and totally out of his control is error or their would be no need for the directive to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
I dont need to study Calvinism as I was raised in a Calvinist church. I totally understand the dangers of Calvinism. As well I have debated with those who believe that man can seek God which is also counter to scripture.
My view of Calvinism as expressed here on these threads will not soften as you say. After 35 years in that environment my view is not superficial and I rejected much of it. Thanks for the invite but Ill pass.
I agree that the road to Calvary was painful for God. I believe His grief is real where He says He grieved.
That does not change the difficulty in both the foreknowledge and the foreordination perspectives. One is difficult because of works and the other is difficult because of sin.
Most people today prefer to quibble over a bare touch of works righteousness than over God being the author of sin. Personally, I do not yet see a biblical explanation that eases the difficulties inherent in either view. That's one thing that makes me think we might be missing something.
Ya know, CB, that's willfully ignoring the obvious. I always have problems with any focus on "gotchas".
They qualify for the "Gotcha Award". And that qualifies them for a position with the media.
How did I willfully ignore the obvious?
I agree. There are Hyper-Calvinists. Spurgeon, who was the most dynamic evangelist and teacher of the 19th Century was a harsh critic of the extreme elements of Calvinism. I dare say that most, if not all of the Calvinists on this forum would heartily stand by Spurgeon' s condemnation of Hyper-Calvinism.
Arminianism as it is taught today is a bastardization of the teachings of Arminius and most dedicated Arminians today are really Semi-Pelagians and when you challenge them with scripture they tend to get angry and defensive. I believe that is ultimately tied to their egos because their notion that because they were wise enough or somehow good enough that they were able to submit to Christ whereas all those other stupid unwise people rejected Christ.
. I totally understand the dangers of Calvinism
Dangers? In my decades of listening to preachers and studying theology I had always discovered that the best preachers and teachers and even evangelists were all pretty much Calvinist in their teachings. Let me list a few and you can tell me what you believe was "dangerous" about what they taught and what they preached.
Ray Stedman
Charles Spurgeon
John MacArthur
D. James Kennedy
I dare say that most of the Protestant Churches that have fallen into sheer Apostasy are those which are Arminian or Calvinist-rejecting Churches. There are churches founded under Calvinistic doctrine that have drifted into Apostasy but those churches first left their commitment to the Confessions before they left Christianity and joined hands with Satan.
After 35 years in that environment
May I inquire as to what denomination you were affiliated and what about it turned you so sour to what we here refer to as the doctrines of Grace (the five solas so to speak).
I was born a Mormon. I became an atheist for a time after studying Mormonism and determining that it was a Fraud. I was saved through the evangelistic teachings of Calvary Chapel and I am still affiliated with them despite their stated objection to both Calvinism and Arminianism. It is interesting to note that nearly all Calvary Chapel preachers model their evangelical messages utilizing Charles Spurgeon as their template for their messages. Since Charles Spurgeon was the most dedicated defender of Calvinism in the 19th Century and since the preaching which brought me to Christ was derived from his sermons and teachings, I fail to see the danger of which you speak.
A bad attitude.
John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
There you go with your assumptions again. No where have I ever disagreed with the doctrines of grace. Gods grace is rather clear in scripture.
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
But Calvinists say that it appears to only those elect.
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
But Calvinists would have to say well, thats not really true because if God willed it all men would be saved. After all, God only calls those who He elects right? Surely He doesnt mean that wants all men to be saved.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But once again Calvinists would have to argue with Peter and say thats not really true. After all, God willed that some should parish and He may be long suffering with the elect but that part about all coming to repentance really doesnt mean all it just means all of the elect. So Peter got that one a little wrong.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
But Calvinists would say mhe, dont worry about that. If God has you as one of the elect you cant be drawn away by Satan. After all, if you are one of Gods elect warnings like that are for someone else right?
>> I fail to see the danger of which you speak.<<
If the saved are predestined to be saved and the lost are lost and nothing is going to affect that, why evangelize? Arent we working against God by preaching the gospel to those He passes by by His choice? Why would Jesus say to go out into all the world? Why waste our time evangelizing if all is predestined. After all, those who are elect will be saved no matter what and those who God has chosen to pass by will never respond anyway. Why does God have us preach to people who He willed not to respond? Why would anyone listen to your message anyway? If they are one of the elect they will be saved without it and if they are passed by they will only be wasting their time listening to you anyway. So lets drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Right?
Why dont you just admit that we really dont understand that whole predestination thing and trust that Gods ways are something we really cant understand? Realize that without Gods grace and working in our lives we wouldnt be saved but that we dont fully understand why some respond positively and others reject God. If God says that He wills that all would be saved why dont you just accept that and admit that we dont understand why some are not and others are? That whole attitude that God randomly elects some and randomly passes by others causes problems with commands by God to go into all the world and also results in fatalism in the attitudes of those who are not now part of the fold. After all, if their saved their saved and if they are not they are not and there is nothing they can do about it either way.
OK, you convinced me.
>> John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.<<
Not all people metmom. Calvinists say its only those who are elect. So John must have misspoke there.
2. Philosophy the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Jeepers dear brother, but Dictionary.com gives an extraordinarily "flat" definition of free will. Compare with the entry for "free will" given in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Free Will is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement of being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being awareor failing that, being culpably unawareof relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition [of] desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship....The debate on free will has been going on for millennia by now, and the issue is still not "resolved."On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire. David Hume, for example, defines liberty as a power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will. (1748, sect.viii, part 1). And we find in Jonathan Edwards (1754) a similar account of free willings as those which proceed from one's own desires.
One reason to deem this insufficient is that it is consistent with the goal-directed behavior of some animals whom we do not suppose to be morally responsible agents. Such animals lack not only an awareness of the moral implications of their actions but also any capacity to reflect on their alternatives and their long-term consequences. Indeed, it is plausible that they have little by way of a self-conception as an agent with a past and with projects and purposes for the future....
4. Theological Wrinkles
A large portion of Western philosophical writing on free will was and is written within an overarching theological framework, according to which God is the ultimate source and sustainer of all else. Some of these thinkers draw the conclusion that God must be a sufficient, wholly determining cause for everything that happens; all suppose that every creaturely act necessarily depends on the explanatorily prior, cooperative activity of God. It is also presumed that human beings are free and responsible (on pain of attributing evil in the world to God alone, and so impugning His perfect goodness). Hence, those who believe that God is omni-determining typically are compatibilists with respect to freedom and (in this case) theological determinism. Edwards (1754) is a good example. But those who suppose that God's sustaining activity (and special activity of conferring grace) is only a necessary condition on the outcome of human free choices need to tell a more subtle story, on which omnipotent God's cooperative activity can be (explanatorily) prior to a human choice and yet the outcome of that choice be settled only by the choice itself....Another issue concerns the impact on human freedom of knowledge of God, the ultimate Good. Many philosophers, especially the medieval Aristotelians, were drawn to the idea that human beings cannot but will that which they take to be an unqualified good. (Duns Scotus appears to be an important exception to this consensus.) Hence, in the afterlife, when humans see God face to face, they will inevitably be drawn to Him. Murray (1993, 2002) argues that a good God would choose to make His existence and character less than certain for human beings, for the sake of their freedom. (He will do so, the argument goes, at least for a period of time in which human beings participate in their own character formation.) If it is a good for human beings that they freely choose to respond in love to God and to act in obedience to His will, then God must maintain an epistemic distance from them lest they be overwhelmed by His goodness and respond out of necessity, rather than freedom....
Finally, there is the question of the freedom of God himself. Perfect goodness is an essential, not acquired, attribute of God. God cannot lie or be in any way immoral in His dealings with His creatures. Unless we take the minority position on which this is a trivial claim, since whatever God does definitionally counts as good, this appears to be a significant, inner constraint on God's freedom. Did we not contemplate immediately above that human freedom would be curtailed by our having an unmistakable awareness of what is in fact the Good? And yet is it not passing strange to suppose that God should be less than perfectly free?
I don't think we're going to "resolve it" here. FWIW.
But why does it have to be "resolved?" i.e., "once and for all?" Any "resolution" would involve an unseemly presupposition that we humans can "know" God's will and purpose just as He Himself knows such things, and then to "reduce" the divine intelligence regarding such matters to the level of vastly imperfect human understanding. I daresay something tremendously vital gets lost in that translation....
Thank you so much for writing, HarleyD.
Lets see about that. Do you have any problems with Spurgeon's sermon on the Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace below:
he proceedings were commenced by singing the 21st Hymn
We'll sing the vast unmeasured grace
Which, from the days of old,
Did all his chosen sons embrace,
As sheep within the fold.
The basis of eternal love
Shall mercy's frame sustain;
Earth, hell, or sin, the same to move
Shall all conspire in vain.
Sing, O ye sinners bought with blood,
Hail the Great Three in One;
Tell how secure the cov'nant stood
Ere time its race begun.
Ne'er had ye felt the guilt of sin,
Nor sweets of pard'ning love,
Unless your worthless names had been
Enroll'd to life above.
O what a sweet exalted son
Shall rend the vaulted skies,
When, shouting, grace, the blood-wash'd throng
Shall see the Top Stone rise.
The Rev. George Wyard, of Deptford, offered prayer.
he REV. C. H. Spurgeon in opening the proceedings said, we have met together beneath this roof already to set forth most of those truths in which consists the peculiarity of this Church. Last evening we endeavoured to show to the world, that we heartily recognised the essential union of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And now, this afternoon and evening, it is our intention, through the lips of our brethren, to set forth those things which are verily received among us, and especially those great points which have been so often attacked, but which are still upheld and maintained,truths which we have proved in our experience to be full of grace and truth. My only business upon this occasion is to introduce the brethren who shall address you, and I shall do so as briefly as possible, making what I shall say a preface to their remarks.
The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is exceedingly important, but it does not so involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend upon our holding either system of theology. Between the Protestant and the Papist there is a controversy of such a character, that he who is saved on the one side by faith in Jesus, dare not allow that his opponent on the opposite side can be saved while depending on his own works. There the controversy is for life or death, because it hinges mainly upon the doctrine of justification by faith, which Luther so properly called the test doctrine, by which a Church either stands or falls. The controversy again between the believer in Christ and the Socinian, is one which affects a vital point. If the Socinian be right, we are most frightfully in error; we are, in fact, idolaters, and how dwelleth eternal life in us? and if we be right, our largest charity will not permit us to imagine that a man can enter heaven who does not believe the real divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are other controversies which thus cut at the very core, and touch the very essence of the whole subject. But, I think we are free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitfield with equal fervour fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. We cannot shut our eyes to what we believe to be the gross mistakes of our opponents, and should think ourselves unworthy of the name of honest men, if we could admit that they are right in all things and ourselves right too. An honest man has an intellect which does not permit him to believe that "yes" and "no" can both subsist at the same hour and both be true. I cannot say, "It is," and my brother point blank say, "It is not," and yet both of us be right on that point. We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future of even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency if spirit, believing that we are doing God's work and upholding most important truth. It may not be misunderstood, we only use the term for shortness. That doctrine which is called "Calvinism" did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ the great founder of the Christian dispensation. We use the term then, not because we impute any extraordinary importance to Calvin's having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole would be as consistent with fact. And then again, this afternoon, we shall have very likely to speak of Arminians, and by that, we would not for a moment insinuate that all who are in membership with the Arminian body, hold those particular views. There are Calvinists in connection with Calvinistic Churches, who are not Calvinistic, bearing the name but discarding the system. There are, on the other hand, not a few in the Methodist Churches, who, in most points perfectly agree with us, and I believe that if the matter came to be thoroughly sifted, it would be found that we are more agreed in our private opinions than in our public confessions, and our devotional religion is more uniform than our theology. For instance, Mr. Wesley's hymn-book, which may be looked upon as being the standard of his divinity, has in it upon some topics higher Calvinism than many books used by ourselves. I have been exceedingly struck with the very forcible expressions there used, some of which I might have hesitated to employ myself. I shall ask your attention while I quote verses from the hymns of Mr. Wesley, which we can all endorse as fully and plainly in harmony with the doctrines of grace, far more so than the preaching of some modern Calvinists. I do this because our low-doctrine Baptists and Morisonians ought to be aware of the vast difference between themselves and the Evangelical Arminians.
"Lord, I despair myself to heal:
I see my sin, but cannot feel;
I cannot, till thy Spirit blow,
And bid the obedient waters flow.
'Tis thine a heart of flesh to give;
Thy gifts I only can receive:
Here, then, to thee I all resign;
To draw, redeem, and seal,is thine.
With simple faith on thee I call,
My Light, my Life, my Lord, my all:
I wait the moving of the pool;
I wait the word that speaks me whole."
HYMN 133, verse 4.
"Thy golden sceptre from above
Reach forth; lo! my whole heart I bow;
Say to my soul, Thou art my love;
My chosen midst ten thousand, thou."
This is very like election.
"I cannot rest, till in thy blood
I full redemption have:
But thou, through whom I come to God,
Canst to the utmost save.
From sin, the guilt, the power, the pain,
Thou wilt redeem my soul:
Lord, I believe, and not in vain;
My faith shall make me whole.
I too, with thee, shall walk in white;
With all thy saints shall prove,
What is the length, and breadth, and height,
And depth of perfect love."
Brethren, is not this somewhat like final perseverance? and what is meant by the next quotation, if people of God can perish at all?
"Who, who shall in thy presence stand,
And match Omnipotence?
Ungrasp the hold of thy right hand,
Or pluck the sinner thence?
Sworn to destroy, let earth assail;
Nearer to save thou art:
Stronger than all the powers of hell,
And greater than my heart."
The following is remarkably strong, especially in the expression "force." I give it in full:
"O my God, what must I do?
Thou alone the way canst show;
Thou canst save me in this hour;
I have neither will nor power:
God, if over all thou art,
Greater than my sinful heart,
All thy power on me be shown,
Take away the heart of stone.
Take away my darling sin,
Make me willing to be clean;
Make me willing to receive
All thy goodness waits to give.
Force me, Lord, with all to part;
Tear these idols from my heart;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.
Jesus, mighty to renew,
Work in me to will and do;
Turn my nature's rapid tide,
Stem the torrent of my pride;
Stop the whirlwind of my will;
Speak, and bid the sun stand still;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.
Arm of God, thy strength put on;
Bow the heavens, and come down;
All my unbelief o'erthrow;
Lay th' aspiring mountain low:
Conquer thy worst foe in me,
Get thyself the victory;
Save the vilest of the race;
Force me to be saved by grace."
HYMN 206, verses 1, 2.
"What am I, O thou glorious God!
And what my father's house to thee,
That thou such mercies hast bestow'd
On me, the vilest reptile, me!
I take the blessing from above,
And wonder at the boundless love.
Me in my blood the love pass'd by,
And stopp'd, my ruin to retrieve;
Wept o'er my soul thy pitying eye;
Thy bowels yearn'd, and sounded, "Live!"
Dying, I heard the welcome sound,
And pardon in thy mercy found."
Nor are these all, for such good things as these abound, and they constrain me to say, that in attacking Arminianism we have no hostility towards the men who bear the name rather than the nature of that error, and we are opposed not to any body of men, but to the notions which they have espoused.
And now, having made these remarks upon terms used, we must observe that there is nothing upon which men need to be more instructed than upon the question of what Calvinism really is. The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometime, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue; and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin, and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of strawshoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence. We come here to state what our views really are, and we trust that any who do not agree with us will do us the justice of not misrepresenting us. If they can disprove our doctrines, let them state them fairly and then overthrow them, but why should they first caricature our opinions and then afterwards attempt to put them down? Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinists proper, is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere, in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person. We say, with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little, and, therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically. But I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions, and those unknown to me, when I say, we hold that all infants are elect of God and are therefore saved, and we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree, and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus, who said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms those tender ones who are only shown, and then snatched away to heaven. Our hymns are no ill witness to our faith on this point, and one of them runs thus:
Why dont you folks just follow who you will follow and I will follow Christ. You folks can major in the minors if you wish. See my tagline.
You are insinuating that by holding the Doctrines of Grace that somehow we are not following Christ.
I take it you didn't read the Sermon by Spurgeon.
From the Sermon you refused to read:
There are other controversies which thus cut at the very core, and touch the very essence of the whole subject. But, I think we are free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitfield with equal fervour fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other.
It is a shame that all of us can't be so charitable, isn't it?
Im not insinuating anything. If you feel threatened for some reason its not my concern. If you are secure in your faith who am I to argue? Follow the teachings you feel called to follow.
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.