There are two ways to look at that poster. If through the eyes of Calvin, then you are correct, Nathan.

But if the poster is a warning in and of itself, and if a person can change his ways, then it is a good object lesson.

Calvinism is such a destructive and illogical and unbiblical prism through which to view Christ and His Word. It must be rejected with extreme prejudice.

Rick Frueh – circa 2008

BTW Nathan – If you are not elect and your life’s purpose is ordained by God as a sinking ship, what can you do about it? And will a person who is predestined to be a sinking ship even know they are? Who is this poster addressing, the living Titanics whose predetermined destruction is meant to please God?

Calvinism is a great deception.

Rick Frueh – circa 2008

Wait! They are preaching arminianism at CRN.. and backhandedly promoting the Purpose Driven Life! LOL!

If the “downside” is that we can serve as a waring to others, then it is our choice whether we serve the Purpose (God’s which is what the Purpose in PDL is about) or we serve as a warning for not having served that purpose.

Great job CRN! Jacobus Arminius would be proud!

iggy

Too bad.
I really like the humor over at Despair.com.

1,2,3…

cue the: “youbecomewhatyouhate”, caaaawwwwww, caaawwwwww, I’m clever cuz I could say the same thing about you too, caaaaawwww, caaaaaawwwww.

Other captions:

Sink your old life, Christ can give you a new one!

Reject hedonism and sink your yacht!

Watch out for iceburgs!

God has provided a life raft!

The party’s over!

Rick,
No smilies?

Be the best warning you can – go down quickly.

This iceberg’s for you!

And down goes Frazier!

Who are you to question the Captain?

Your predestined Love Boat.

God has a plan for your life – enjoy the ride!

Your life – A three hour tour!

I think that you miss the point. Most people look for the purpose as something that is good to them, make them happy in a wordly sense. But with God we know all things work out for the good. Like the examples you mentioned was it “good” that they died. No people would rather live, but it did turn out good.

I would say that this poster is decrying the PD and WOF movements saying everything is focused on you and how many creature comforts you can gain in this life.

How do you hanlde the verses sited by your counter parts. God makes some vessels for dishonorable purposes!

Anyways I think the picture and caption is fine. Our culture sees personal peace and afluence as the utlimate good, when God has a very different meaning to that word.

Kyle – To whom is the poster speaking? If it speaks to one who God created to be destroyed what can they do? Is God rubbing it in?

I would say that this poster is decrying the PD and WOF movements saying everything is focused on you and how many creature comforts you can gain in this life.

So if the purpose of a person’s life is to get caught up in the WoF movement and provide a warning to others – rejoice! We should than God for deceivers, they are faithfully fulfilling God’s will for their lives!!!

How do you hanlde the verses sited by your counter parts. God makes some vessels for dishonorable purposes!

Kyle,
You need to read that section in Romans more carefully. Paul is basically telling the Jews that they have no right to be angry at God when He extends mercy to “objects of His wrath”. It’s basically Paul telling the Jews that they can’t just think of themselves as the “chosen ones” and everyone else as people God doesn’t love. Ironically, many Calvinists have fallen into the same trap as the Jews Paul is writing to!

Are you kidding me, Nathaniel???

Wow.

“Is this not what the bible promised. That false teachers would arise ect…We should thank God because He brought about those false teachers for a reason, for our good, to those that are called according to His purpose and love Him.”

I thank God for pedophiles. See, Kyle, that is goofy theology.

Phil,

Where do you see that in Romans at all.

19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man,to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

So why does God find fault if He is in control and choose who to have mercy on. Like any calvinist would would affirm and any arminian would decry. How can he find fault still???

Basically according to this passage it is not our right to ask why God makes vessel for certain puproses. Kind of the samthing God told Job. Who are you to ask me??

Remeber Paul just said all of Isreal is not true Isreal, so he is talking about individuals and why some are loved by God and other are not. So basically God does because He is God and it is not our place to question His will and conusel.

God like he says in Peter, is delaying judegment day that His mercy and goodness might be exalted! Angles long to look into this mystery because they never say nor recived mercy. Goes back to the old question. Why would God creat us if he knew we were going to rebel and hate him in Adam and in ourselves. This is some of the answer but we must always remember not to speculate on who is what kind of vessel. The sercet things belong to God.

Anyways that is enough fun for today.

So is evil outside the control of God? Or is it something that was created by someone else? God is not the aurthor of evil, he never does evil and can not. But this is a HARD question how does it relate to God and His soverignty? hard stuff.

Kyle,
You really need to look at some commentaries of Romans to get the context and rhetoric that Paul is using in the book. I really recommend Ben Witherington’s. I won’t get into the details here, but even in that same chapter you quote, there’s this section.

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” and,
“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ’sons of the living God.’ “

Basically, Paul is talking to Jews who are content in being the chosen ones. He’s basically telling, hey, the fact that you’re chosen doesn’t mean God can’t choose those who were previously not chosen.

Remember, a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean.

No he is talking to Romans, mostly genitles, and he is telling them that it is up to God’s grace not national identity that saves!

“Basically, Paul is talking to Jews who are content in being the chosen ones. He’s basically telling, hey, the fact that you’re chosen doesn’t mean God can’t choose those who were previously not chosen.”

We, gentiles, have always been chosen, since before the world was created. That is a long time ago and there is no changing of who is chosen. That would nulify the promise if God could renig. Again not saying who and who is not elect, that is not for us to know, just that God’s word can not be thwarted.

Remember when you take the text out of context all you are left with is a con!:)

Even Paul calls evil a mystery. We surely should not rejoice in iniquity.

Unconditional election and limited atonement will always throw your entire exegesis way off throughout Scripture.

S.J.,
That’s udder-ly hilarious…

Someone once said (I think it was Rick Godwin ):

A theologian is someone who looks for a black cat in a dark room which is not there and finds it

I don’t know how it relates to this thread but I just wanted to post some smilies.

I’m going to milk this one for all its worth.

This is the cream of the crop.

Puns are my bread and butter.

Whoa, someone ought to ween me off here…

False teacher – someone who doesn’t agree with me.

Heretic – an insect who lives in the scalp

Expert – a former spurt

Mature believer – someone who agrees with me

Committed believer – someone who agrees with me

Spirit of Discernment – agrees with me

Strong meat – agrees with me

Shallow milk – agrees with you

Wind of doctrines – questions

Red Sox fan – apostate.

Liberal – teaching Christ died for everyone

Conservative – no gay friends

Orthodox – hates sinners

Pentagram – a message from one five pointer to another

Original language – Calvin’s Institutes

Exegesis – Spurgeon says

Evangelism – discipleship

Watchman – Jeremiah Timex

Red Sox fan – apostate.

Not funny Rick . In Boston growing up, we said that the Yanks were hell-bound. So just to give you some perspective, the other side always thinks the other guys are going to hell.

As one that has been in combat as a soldier(infantryman) and survived. It makes perfect sense to me…I’ve lived it!

I know exactly what you mean Scotty. I’ve had those same thoughts during my time in the military and overseas. I often wonder “has my purpose been fulfilled? And is my time up, on this mision?” Weird thoughts…

Steve,

“Hockey’s the real game.”

Now you’re talkin.

Joe C,
Boston Stinks! In baseball, football, basketball and hockey. If you want, send me your address and I’ll mail you a copy of the Super Bowl. You can watch in your bus driver uniform that gets you into the adult version of the Boy Scouts.

NHL CHAMPOINSHIPS LAST 30 YEARS

Tampa Bay Lightning = 1

Boston Bruins = 0

Very balanced, Iggy. These verses in Romans deal with the issue of Israel and the Gentiles with Romans 11 giving a very clear chronology.

This is why when you misapply these verses you have to change all sorts of words elsewhere in the NT.

Rick,

When I studied Romans 9 I realized I could never be a Calvinist as it would twist the passage to mean something is never was truly intended to teach. In fact the only one I have seen go to verse 24 is James White… Yet he is so either/or on nations and individuals that he misses it is both/and and has nothing to do with “election” in the sense the Calvinist use it for. Since this passage is the “Calvinist” passage and I see it as not teaching what they claim, then there is no way I can honestly be a Calvinist.

I have tried to point this out to a few, but they seem to not see that Paul’s conclusion is in these last verses and without them it is not tied together. They can only see what their tradition teaches.

iggy

So what is the point Paul is trying to make? He is saying it does not depend one who runs, works, or wills. Salvation is from God’s grace and that is the bottom line according to Paul.

Also I think the distiction between a natural born Jew and a real “Jew” is important. The whole of nation was not elected to salvation, they where elected to a specail purpose for revelaing God’s salvation. Paul labors this point before going into this section and this is the point that most Jews missed that through them the whole world would be blessed. Remember the bible is progressive revelation, more and more is being reveled until the coming of Christ. So most, but not all, Jews missed that it was never if you were born a Jew and had circumsion with hands but it mattered if you were born again and had a curicumsion done by the Holy Spirit. I do not see how the verse you meation change anything. This is still personal but taking in categories because it talks of salvation for those who did not seek and those who seek it by works.

Also the discussion of evil is not related to this. More of a thinking question. In light of the doctrine of God how do God and evil relate?

If this blog wants to be taken seriously then there better be a move beyond the maturity level of two year olds. Read through this entire thread, it’s an embarrassment.

iggy;
“The Calvinist misapplies this to the Elect, yet Israel is the elect….”

Now define Israel:

Romans 9:
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Romans 11:
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way ALL Israel will be saved,

Israel is all who believe through the promised one. Israel is both jew and gentile and always has been both jew and gentile.
When the fullness of the gentiles has come in and the “partially hardened”, i.e. the remnant of jews have the veil lifted, then and only then, is all of Israel saved. Israel is God’s people, jew and gentile.
Romans 2 totally discounts biology as a means of salvation.

In case any missed it:
“He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy”
All of this is done by God’s sovereign election.

As for the sudden “discovery” of the
“what if”;

Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.”

2 Thess 2:
9The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

11Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,

12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

You can worship whatever golden calf you choose.
You’re so hell bent on ridiculing Calvin and calvinists, fundies and odms, that you don’t even care what is true, and what isn’t.
And for the zillionth time, I am not a calvinist.

I hovered between Arminianism and Calvinism for years, but in the end I realized the Scriptures were clearly Arminian. However I think I would have become a Calvinist had it not been for Calvinists.

Rick Gandhi – circa 2008

I do not believe in total depravity as defined by Calvin. Man is incapable of saving himself and indeed even helping in that endeavor.

I believe man is fallen yet with an innate sense of a creator and coupled with a free will he is also capable of seeking God. Many of the world’s religions, even though false, have been constructed by someone who was seeking the divine.

But only the Holy Spirit can draw a sinner to a saving knowledge of the Redeemer, but the sinner can and does sometimes seek God. The Calvinist view of the sinner is that he cannot and will not ever seek God and only if God chooses to make him alive will he come to Christ. That theology is Biblically and practically flawed, and when listening to some of the modern reformed/Calvinistis preachers they themselves abrogate its teachings.

Rick-
I certainly agree with you that limited atonement does violence to the work of Christ.

I would also say that I do not believe in TD the way Calvin articulates it. However, I would say that unless God first moves towards us we will not move to God. The Good News, however, is that God HAS moved towards us (Calvary). It is what Wesley defined as prevenient grace – grace given and available to ALL, not just some elect.
The therapeutic model of salvation, one Wesley would claim, states all are given a so-called “dose” of grace from inception by where we can either consent or dissent. A small “yes” on our part to the grace given leads more grace, so on and so on. We move from grace to grace, glory to glory, as Paul puts it. Yet none of this necessarily detracts from the long held view of total depravity. Wesley believed in total depravity – but he also believed in the total cure available to all the world.

peace.

“No sinner can ultimately come to Christ but by the Spirit.”

Agreed.

“But I believe a sinner can start to seek God on his own,”

My problem with this statement is that it would appear to make the first statement above arbitrary. At what point in the seeking does God then say, “Ok, I have it from here – good job”? Must a sinner seek well enough at the beginning for the Holy Spirit to then take the wheel? Those are just some of the theological problems I see with that, though it is not a hill I would choose to die on.
I know myself. I know that left to myself, I certainly would seek god – the problem is, it wouldn’t be GOD.

“but in the end that entire process is a mystery”

couldn’t agree more.

Chad – a man is stranded on an island with no way to escape. His only hope is if a ship comes to rescue him, however he still looks and calls and seeks to see a ship on the horizon.

Another man on the same island doesn’t care, does not believe a ship will come, and moves to the other side of the island and lives his life.

Finally a ship comes and only one man sees it come and is rescued. The rescue was entirely due to the ship, however one man was watching and seeking.

Did he have a volleyball that he talked to?

And such is the mystery of free will. It is all of the Spirit and let us not forget that the free will is a gift from God as well. We can not glory in our faith, we glory in our Christ.

Sometimes God rescues the one who went to the other side and wasn’t looking as well. A mystery. Sometimes the boat goes around to the other side of the island and calls for the non-seeker to come aboard and the man refuses. A mystery.

Anyone who says they have it all figured out is deceived.

There were two men stranded on a desert island. One was panicked and angry at the other man for being so calm.

The second man stated, ” Don’t worry, my pastor will find us.”

The first man said, ” What?”

The Second man said, ” I am a BIG tither. The Pastor will find me.”

iggy

This post, and the ensuing “edited” comments will be the subject of my next post.

Iggy, Ken, Rick, Tim, MacArthur, and Mrs. Schlueter were stranded on an island.

Iggy -”Don’t worry, we are all gonig to be rescued!”

MacArthur -”Only some of us will be rescued”.

Ken wrote about Iggy in the sand.

Tim cursed his situation.

Rick agreed and disagreed depending on the day.

Mrs. Schlueter cooked dinner.

See – A Mystery!!

(The previous story was an honest attempt at humor. Anyone taking it personally should lighten up!)

Kent-
They might, I don’t really know. But the term “Calvinist” is so broad that such labels don’t do a person any real justice. Not all Calvinists are 5-pointers (very few are, in fact) and then there are distinctions even beyond that. There are even such a thing as free-will Calvinists. Go figure.

I’m a zero-point Calvinist.

Well, let’s hope, for Phil’s sake, the island has no wood. Or at least no matches.

Rick -
That’s a great post. That is one of my favorite stories of Wesley. Even just as interesting is what he had to say when he returned home from GA quite dejected and unsure of anything anymore. He said that he had gone to GA to convert the Indians only to realize it was he who needed converted. I love his introspective honesty. If only all of us could model that more.

thanks for sharing that.
peace.

Remember when you take the text out of context all you are left with is a con!:)

That doesn’t even make sense…

How can you have context without a text?

If it speaks to one who God created to be destroyed what can they do? Is God rubbing it in?

What other explanation is there though Rick?? Its the main reason i’m more and more moving away from Christianity..Even so i may appear a fundie, i’m a stone cold heritic on the subject of orginal sin…

How can you get away from the fact , that a ALL KNOWING God created people who’s end is hell, and He knew that but still created them!!!!

Free will free will you shout, butttt can a person do anything other then what God as seen them do??

Because the truth of the matter tradional Christianity equals

Three beings floated around for an infinate time,then said “lets make some beings, and one of will be called Satan and he will betray us,and then he will lead man and woman astray”..

And “you Man and Woman were going to create you
(even so you didn’t ask to be created),and your be born a sinner…
Oh and the big kicker is were going to judge you for it, and the penalties is hell because your totally sinful,because we created you that way but thats still your fault..

Haha brilliant,oh and btw i’m LOVE “…

fairy tales!!!!!!!!

How can God find fault??? For who can resist His will???

Phil- All those are excellent book suggestions.

Andy – That is a characterization (and a poor one) of why God created and the ultimate plan of redemption for the world that God is bringing to pass.

N.T. Wright makes the point in Surprised by Hopethat some people think that if they cease to believe in a God as some bearded old man sitting on a cload that they have therefore ceased believing in God (and became athiests) and also, if they cease to believe hell is some place where God tortures those who didn’t believe in him (or that it is some firey pit with worms and such) for all eternity that they therefore do not believe in hell (and became universalists). He then goes on to say that there are far better reasons for not becoming an athiest or a universalist, but these are not them.

Andy, if you came to me to say you do not believe in God and then went on to describe God and God’s plans in the way you did I would agree with you 100% and tell you I do not believe in that God either.

grace and peace,
Chad

28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, forthose who are called according to his purpose. 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. 31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

Everyone that God foreknows(which is a verb that God does not a genral knowledge) is saved it is pretty plan in the texts, a foreknowledge by God leads to Him glorifing us. Or am I missing it?

Chad answer me clearly, is my example crap if Boyd is wrong about God not knowing the future???

That is a characterization (and a poor one) of why God created and the ultimate plan of redemption for the world that God is bringing to pass.

For some!!!!

Also in your defetion of election it makes no sense of Jesus’s warnings against false Christ doing miracles. The are going to be so great that the would even presuade the elect if it were possible. So no one in the world will be decived since it is not possible. Again the reason we are not decived is becasue salvation belongs to the Lord from begining to end. It is the Lord who saves not us.

Ok well we can agree to disagree because i think ur example is crap to!

You just don’t have the balls to have a horid God neither do i, but i’m not going to hide my head from the facts that can’t be disputed that HE IS ALL KNOWING…

You say we have free will and i can’t see that,oh yes we have a pretense of free will…But if God sees me trip up tomorrow i will…

Andy-
There is no reason to be rude. I don’t understand where your hostility is coming from.

Look, it isn’t about what I have the “balls” to think or not. This isn’t about what sort of God I want. It is about the sort of God revealed in scripture. The way you characterize God is no doubt the way you have been taught and probably told and probably heard preached. At least recognize that none of us is objective in this and we all come to the table with baggage.

Perhaps you can go through my description of Gods salvific plan for the world and tell me which parts exactly you think are “crap” and why? That might be a good place to start.

grace and peace,
Chad

The point I am trying to make is that election is not about general nations or peoples, but is personal and loving to whom God foreknow, call, justified, glorifies. He elects people whom He loves becasue He is good.

Just commenting also when Jesus warns us about false Christ, saying that even the elect would be decived if it were possilbe. So according to the defition that you hold no one will be lead astray becasue everyone is the elect.

So why aren’t the elect decived?

The way you characterize God is no doubt the way you have been taught and probably told and probably heard preached

No i didnt go to church till i was 16 ish and then it was a charismatic church,i would guess their more like you..

Do you believe that a sovereign God knew which people wouldn’t choose him when He created them ???

This is my fundamental problem, i cant see how God didn’t know..If there’s a loop hole i’d be happy to hear it

Well that is not calvinism.

God looked down the corridor of time and saw that no one would chose Him, not even one. But while we where still sinners Christ died for us. Even though we hated and where enemies of God He loved us and sent His Son to redem us. Even though we would not chose Him if left on our own, He chose us. This is grace, that God even saved some of a wicked race and should mercy to those whom He loved. That He chagned our heart, regenrated our our spirit and then sealed us with His Spirit. Why would God do that to those who hate Him? why would He show any mercy to us? Because God is love and He is good.

So God indeed does know who will chose them becasue He first chose them. Why should a vile sinner such as I or anyone else ever be saved? Grace Alone to the Glory of God Alone!

Andy-
I’m sure it is the internets fault

Anways, I believe you are asking the wrong question.
Again, as my point to Kyle makes, election is NOT about individual people but is corporate – it is about nations. The question you should be asking is: Did a Sovereign God created all of humanity knowing that some would reject Him and then not provide the efficient solution to that rejection? That would indeed be a wicked God if it were so. But the Good News is that God did NOT leave us to ourselves, and did not leave us weak, sinners and enemies of his but died for us so that ALL would not perish but have everlasting life.
Evil and sin is not God’s fault. It is in the midst of evil and sin that God has reached out to save the world. The promise we have is that God WILL renew all of creation, wipe away every tear and bring justice where there has been injustice.

Calvinism is not the only doctrine that makes sense. You have proven that. I would advise stop putting your faith in a doctrine and instead place your trust in the one who promises to rescue the world.

peace,
Chad

Hi Phil no i haven’t, obviously coming from a (strict) but charismatic church calvinism isn’t what i was taught..

I’m not even sure i’m so concerned about the 5 points i’m purely stuck on (((Do you believe that a sovereign God knew which people wouldn’t “choose him when He created them))) If its yes then i can see how important are preceived free will is ,because if God as seen it it will happen surely..

Then how do you deal witho when Jesus warns us about false Christ, saying that even the elect would be decived if it were possilbe. So according to the defition that you hold no one will be lead astray becasue everyone is the elect.
Or Peter tells us to make sure of OUR, personal, election and calling. Election is personal not corparte for salvation. No election of Isreal was not for salvation but for a means of saving the world becasue that was God’ plan. The whole world would be blessed through them.

corporate ?? But its clearly not accepted corprately and therefore my question still stands..

OK Did a sovergein God Know what people wouldn’t accept His corporate offer ,before he created them?

If Boyd is correct in His theology, which I see as the only logical conclusiong to Arminianism, was the last 2000 years of christiany false. He is saying things and teaching things that have never been said nor taught in the church before?

I would say that a majority of the church fathers were free-will theists. They simply lived with the tension that foreknowledge didn’t mean predestination. There have been a lot of people throughout history that have rejected the idea of individual predestination.

Kyle-
This discussion is enjoyable but I hope you can also appreciate the many layers it entails. I do not want to give the impression that one post or one answer is sufficient to cover your questions or that I even have the right answers.

Your questions require more to be said. Jesus said that these false Christ’s might even lead astray the elect. That is the corporate elect once again – those who have stepped into the light and the life offered them freely by grace.
Yes, I said earlier that because Gentiles have been grafted in they too are elect. This is to say that not only Israel but ALL nations are now “elect.” This can be taken 2 ways:
1. One might say that all nations are now elect but this does not negage the choice of individuals to choose to be part of the elect. IOW, no one is excluded (there is no predestination/reprobation as Calvin taught). All are invited to the table – ALL are elect in this sense.

2. Salvation in multi-faceted and multi-layered. It is not only dealing with the present but also the past and the future. Also, it not only deals with individuals but with all of creation, the WHOLE of life. In this sense, ALL are elect (ALL are saved) in the finished work of Jesus Christ on Calvary. EVERYONE is saved, they just do not know it yet. That brings us to present salvation, which is what most people limit themselves (unfortunately) to thinking of when they think of salvation. Presently, while I may be elect in God’s sight because of what Jesus did I am not elect in the sense of experiencing/living that salvation that has been given me. Yet I am still “elect.” Only when God establishes his eternal rule will salvation be made complete – at that time we all may be in for a surprise.

Hope that helps clear some of that up.

peace,
Chad

I’m not being rude,i thought u were maybe its the internet…

Plus i’m in the process of bidding for a rolleiflex standard so i’m stressed haha

Andy-

You seem to be hung up on the same question which I have already shown is the wrong question to be asking. If you’d like to discuss this further I would appreciate you engaging in what I have actually written. Feel free to refute that. I’m happy to be proven wrong.

The reason I do not worship the God you describe is because he does not exist. Plain and simple. I find it difficult enough to accept a God who loves people I would hate and calls me to love them as well. The God of Calvinits does not, however, and in that sense sounds far too much like myself.

peace,
Chad

Prayers to the god of Open Theism

oh Dear Zeus we humbly besheech your presence today

Dear god, sorry to surprise you the other day. Never saw that one coming did you? HA!

Dear god, so is that why you never give me any good lottery numbers?

I’m allowed to hung up by any question i wish to be arn’t i??

I dont think uve shown its the wrong question for me,and this is the question you replied to…But are take ur answer to mean you don’t think a sovereign God knows who will pick him when he created them…

But if ur idea of this corporate message for all is correct,then why did the bible prophecies a man would betray Jesus ,was there a corporate calling to Judas??

Election is both personal in reagrds to slavation and coporate in reagards to the nation of Isreal and revelation. Can it not be both. Otherwise Peter telling us to make sure of OUR calling and election is pointless if it is not personal.

‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it, and,
” ‘May another take his place of leadership.

Psalms 41:9 Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.

Psalms 55:12-24 If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were raising himself against me, I could hide from him. 13 But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, 14 with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship as we walked with the throng at the house of God.

Seems to me Judas was screwed a few thousand years before he was even born..

And then Jesus doesn’t even give him a out??

24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Election is both personal in reagrds to slavation and coporate in reagards to the nation of Isreal and revelation. Can it not be both. Otherwise Peter telling us to make sure of OUR calling and election is pointless if it is not personal.

I’m kind of confused as to why you’re harping on this passage in Peter. It seems to me that the way you’re taking that passage would cause other issues with a Calvinist view. Namely you seem to be taking it to say that a Christian doesn’t have eternal security.

By the way, Calvinism isn’t by any mean what the majority of Christians believe. John Piper estimates around 5-6% of Christians in the world are Calvinists. It’s just kind of amazing to me when Calvinists talk to us like we are somehow the ones who are on the fringe.

Andy-
I don’t believe the Psalmist was a prediction of Judas anymore than I believe the suffering servant in Isaiah was a prediction of Jesus Christ.

Don’t forget that Jesus shared communion with the one who would betray him. And don’t forget Jesus often employed hyperbole to make a point (a common Jewish teaching technique). To say it would be better had he never been born is to show just how awful it is for someone to persistently reject God’s offer of grace.

I meant to add above: It is through Jesus Christ that God is RECONCILING the world to Himself.

Calvinists forget that the Gospel is GOOD NEWS to the world, not just some of us.

Chad i’m a little confused by what ur saying..

I will agree to disagree on isa 53 and the judas verses..

But when you use words like world and All do you believe God will save everyone in the end ?

Yeah if you don’t see those as predicting Christ than the NT is wrong and the apostle’s becasue they quoted 53 a lot refering to Christ.

Kyle,
There is a BIG difference between Isaiah predicting Christ in Isa. 53 and the NT authors looking back over their storied history and identyfing that story as a pre-figurement of Christ.
As a pastor I do this all the time. We read scripture and show how the long narrative of God’s dealings with his creation is unfolding even now, today.
Isaiah, like the Psalmist, had a message that was real and impactful for their contemporaries – the people in real time. To divorce them from their historical setting and say it is about some future event minimizes their role in establishing the rule of God in their day and age.

If you are determined to believe that the Psalmist was prophecying about a lone, sorry individual a few thousand years down the road who would one day betray the Messiah

No its not what i’m determined to believe, it seems its what Peter was saying..Or is your arguement Peter was just using hindsight??

If you are determined to believe that the Psalmist was prophecying about a lone, sorry individual a few thousand years down the road who would one day betray the Messiah

oops No its not what i’m determined to believe, it seems its what Peter was saying..Or is your arguement Peter was just using hindsight??

Acts 1:20″For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
” ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[d] and,
” ‘May another take his place of leadership.’[e]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:20;&version=31;

First, that is more than likely an editorial note by Luke, the author of Acts. But that doesn’t really matter.
Whoever said it is doing what I just said above. They are applying their scriptures (the OT) to a present situation.

Of further interest is the fact that when Luke quotes from the OT he is using the LXX (the Greek version of the OT) and not the MT (the Hebrew Bible). The Hebrew bible version of what Luke cites reads:
“May their camp be a desolation; let n0 one live in their tents.” (Ps. 69:25). The Psalmist it talking about an enemy that is attacking in the entire context, not about Judas, or a lone betrayer one day.

Then, “May his days be few; may another seize his position.” (Ps. 109:8).
Again, the context of this Psalm is a wicked person and what the Psalmist hopes happens to this enemy. It goes on, “May his children wander about and beg…” and on and on.

Luke records this to say, “May another take his position as overseer.” THat is to say: Judas turned wicked on us, so like our Psalmist hoped for, lets appoint another to take his position.”

First, that is more than likely an editorial note by Luke, the author of Acts. But that doesn’t really matter.
Whoever said it is doing what I just said above. They are applying their scriptures (the OT) to a present situation.

hmmm their using hindsight,ok we totally disagree i think Peter was stating it was a prophecy…

Anyhow thks for ur time

Chad,

Of the Open Theism proponents I have read many say that God does not foreknow with absolute certainty the decisions His free will creatures will make and the only outcomes of which He is absolutely certain are those which are a part of His sovereign plan which He Himself will directly effect.

I am ** open ** to see where I have mis-stated the position.

It’s not that God is wringing his hands or that can possibly be surprised, it’s just that He hasn’t determined all future events.

Intentionally jumping into this late, but this statement caught my attention.

Honestly, there is so much confusion in the thread that your head can spin. The madness has to stop…

God absolutely knows about all future events, just like an author of the book knows the beginning from the end (isn’t that a description of God?). He does not exist in time, but CREATED time. Therefore, He is not bound by it.

In the context of a book, while you (the reader) may experience ups-and-downs the author has already determined the outcome.

We know this because of HUNDREDS of references in the Bible. Jesus Christ was the “Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.”
God knew that man would fall before he fell. He prepared the plan for salvation (not as a Plan B) before He created the world.

God knows everything, including the future. However he did not orchestrate everything. God knows the revolution of every electron from every molecule past, present, and future. And He knows the diameter of every electron and the surface temperature of every electron, and the surface area of every electron.

God knows the exact speed of every electron, the weight of every electron, and the gravitational interaction of every electron.

God hasn’t predetermined all things future, but He knows all things future. And embedded in His creation is the mystery of a man, made in God’s image, sinner to the core, and yet given the possibility of choosing to embrace God’s Son by faith, all of which given by God, and yet exercized by the free will of each fallen sinner. Again, a mystery of unfathomable glory!

Rick,

Good comments.

John – There is no such thing as open theism. It is figment of a man’s imagination that humanizes God.

God has no future, He knows everything in one intuative glance. He knows and created everything. God never thinks, that would indicate a process to arrive at some knowledge.

God knows all. Even that cannot give the glory due His Person since it only is a phrase to help us understand the omniscience of God which of course is unknowable.

No man can understand God being eternally past. We can get a little understanding of eternity future, but not past. Many of these suggested theologies are tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Preach the gospel, that my friends is more than we can ever fully comprehend!

Intentionally jumping into this late, but this statement caught my attention.

Honestly, there is so much confusion in the thread that your head can spin. The madness has to stop…

God absolutely knows about all future events, just like an author of the book knows the beginning from the end (isn’t that a description of God?). He does not exist in time, but CREATED time. Therefore, He is not bound by it.

In the context of a book, while you (the reader) may experience ups-and-downs the author has already determined the outcome.

Well, yes, some of this stuff is confusing. I don’t think that means we should ignore it, though. I think it’s fine to delve into some of these more philosophical things as long as we don’t let them become a distraction.

I don’t think any proponent of Open Theism would say God is bound by time. Rather, I think they would He reveals Himself through time, and He extends into time. Time and space aren’t containers, they are probably better viewed as the fabric that the universe is made of, along with matter and energy. So just as God has revealed Himself through “stuff”, He is actively revealing Himself through time as well.

The one thing I do like about Greg Boyd??

He believes politics and nationalism is obstructionist to the gospel!

Preach it, brother. The open theism stuff? Nah.

Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceits, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.

Many on this thread are casting scripture to the side in favor of man-made reasonings and philosophies.

What makes things so “complex” is when we try to meld the two together (worldly philosophy and scripture).

Do you think this is why Paul warned Timothy, on almost a dozen occasions, to stay away from pointless chatter and mentioned the phenomenom of ever learning YET never coming to a knowledge of the truth?

John,
reading over my last post to you I sound pompous, as though I never go to wikipedia for resources but only primary sources. That is not true and I am sorry if I can accross that way.
Only in this instance I can see how only relying on that source can give only part of the whole picture.

I get a little sensitive on this subject because I had a long and harried run around with Dr. Robert Morey on this topic and he (and everyone at BiblicalThought.com) were IMO way out in left field yet insisted they knew best and that Iwas even a heretic for sticking up for Boyd.

You can catch that convo here: http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-review-of-gregory-boyds-trinity-and-process/

I am banned from that site, so dont look for me to comment there.

peace,
Chad

Chad,
I basically quit reading after the frist few paragraphs of that link. Basically, Dr. Morey is pretty clear in saying that anyone who isn’t a Calvinist is a heretic. It’s not even worth reading such tripe. Hats off to you for wading through that.

Phil-
I was grateful for the ban. It forced me to stop talking to myself

Phil, I’m going to drive by with one for you.

You said:

By the way, Calvinism isn’t by any mean[s] what the majority of Christians believe. John Piper estimates around 5-6% of Christians in the world are Calvinists.

That is what I might call a remnant…

Just sayin’…

A remnant? You mean like a piece of cloth no longer needed and discarded?

Yeah, I use remnants to wax my car or clean up paint…

Yes, SJ, good point. Except that rags must be free of self righteous oil or they just smear!

Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceits, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.

Many on this thread are casting scripture to the side in favor of man-made reasonings and philosophies.

Having only a couple of minutes, and not enough time to go all the way through the thread, I assume that “man-made reasonings and philosophies” refers to systematic theologies, like Calvinism?

If a sinner with no Christian heritage received Christ and was born again, and then was put on an island with only the Bible and a Strong’s concordance, he would never construct Calvinism. When I proffered that scenario on another blog I was told how can you trust someone new in the faith to override the learned and mature.

Sometimes the learned and mature frighten me.

To be clear, when I said that Christ’s work wasn’t even the bare minimum, that meant it was more than enough.

Didn’t any more heads bit off today.

BTW Chad, beautiful family. Well done there.

“You owe an apology.”

SJ- I apologize for taking your comments seriously

I do, however, take it very seriously when anyone, Calvinist or not, reduces the atonement to a mere pittance and suggests, even facetiously, that Christ’s salvific work is meant only for a few. I disagree with you that only a FEW will be saved. I believe the cross is such Good News and the work done there was so extraordinary, so scandalous, that limiting it, even in jest, is not all too funny.

peace,
Chad

SJ, and if the above came accross sounding harsh, I do apologize. I just got back from WalMart. Not to mention, if you read this thread through I have been discussing this topic ad nauseum all day and I think I have had my fill. Gonna go find a cold one – wish your brother was Johnny

“I think my daughter has my eyes”

Let’s hope she doesn’t have your cerebral capacity. That can actually be called “limited”.

lol@Rick. We can work together if you bring the Walker. I’ll bring the ice.

A few thoughts on Matt. 7-

The gate being narrow is to say that it must be found (as oppossed to a wide, open gate).
It is also a gate that one must relinquish the baggage they have been carrying in order to enter. This baggage can be the burdens Jesus asks us to allow him to bear, it is sin, it is our own desires and our will. Entering this gate, and the narrow way, is a description of the life that dies to self, picks up a cross and follows Jesus. It is not to be exclusionary or limiting.

As for the few who find it – indeed, Jesus’ contemporaries did not get him. I think they killed him, right? Like any good preacher, Jesus ends his sermon with a call to repent and an acknowledgment that not everyone in attendance will.

Any thoughts of “few” ultimately being saved is vanquished when we get to the end of the story and read:

After this I looked, and there was a great mulititude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. Rev. 7:9

That doesn’t sound like only a “few.”

Reason: because they came out of Great Tribulation – the hell that breaks loose before Jesus returns, causing many, though not all, to repent.

Is this per John the Apostle or Tim LeHaye?

Still, in the grand scheme of things, this huge number is probably relatively small

Will you admit, at least, that this is an assumption on your part?

The bottom line is that God will save whom He will save. As Paul says to Timothy, it is up to God to grant repentance and the opening of the eyes to sinners. We must do our part and live as best we can a life that testifies of the power of the gospel, demonstrate the love of God, serve one another, sanctify ourselves from the spirit of the world and love and worship God.

Amen.

Chris-
Congrats! How exciting. Email me at chad.holtz@duke.edu
Im off to bed now but will respond in the morning.

Jonathan,

Good point. And one I have wrestled with much in the past well before I ever heard Calvin wasn’t just a cartoon and Arminians were not Armenians.

But one thing you might consider is whether you are assuming that things happen “whether we want it or not” for either “good” or “bad” purposes. For God to “predestine us to adoption as sons” is not the same as saying that those who do not wish to be saved will be; and those who might desperately wish to be saved (we’re assuming for reasons more than simple self preservation) might not be and that it os completely random.

What I glean from Scripture is that none will desire it of their own accord (”there is none righteous” “there is none who seeks after God”) and we are all under condemnation–to the last man”(all have sinned and fall short…”. That is the slate.

The very instance of someone truly desiring to be saved, to worship their God and Creator rather than rebel against Him as was naturally his bent to that point, to honestly be at the point of the sprout of love from the seed of repentance; this IS the supernatural calling of God. For most, including myself, it is only after the fact that we can realize it was part of the plan all along and I had taken something on my own but it was given to me by Grace and that no-one save God alone knew it beforehand. But, someone else God called just as miraculously was obedient according to God’s will and through them and others God spoke and this great gift was given me.

“…few there be that find it.” At first glance, we have three options for basic interpretation.
1) a few look for and find it
2) a few happen to find it by chance
3) a few find it by being shown it

Roughly speaking, I would say it a combination of 1 and 3 with being right out. The question then is: can a person who is still lost, dead in sins and trespasses, and thereby in a state of rebellion against God be able to look for the gate on their own, or at least at their own bidding?

Yes, we can look. But the blind cannot find but by either being lead or by chance. Here I would submit that God is not a God of chance. So roughly speaking, that leaves us with either being lead by outside stimuli, or being able to yet look on our own. The thought then needing consideration is whether or not we are spiritually dead and therefore spiritually blind while under sin. It would be good to read 2 Cor. 4, 1 John 2, Eph. 1-2, and Colossians 2.

I would then submit that we are, in sin, quite dead and quite blind. The only way that we could both “look” or “seek” and also “find” is by some miracle.

There has been plenty of near or flat our “Calvinism is evil” kind of stuff here today. Okay, fine. I’m not Calvin so you won’t hurt my feelings. Just think about this fellows. Don’t retort quickly. Don’t label or libel. Just…yes, I’ll say it: meditate on it. (I hope that doesn’t sound emergent)

Chad, perhaps my mild humor was not called for. Destruction of the lost is truly no laughing matter. We should not glory in it as many do. I would, as is obvious by the rest of this post, disagree with your thought process in regards to defining “few”. But it would be worth considering that in all of God’s destructions and salvations of peoples in the past, it has always been a literal few that were spared in relation to the whole populations–from Noah on. Does this mean that there will only be a handful in heaven? No. The passage you quoted serves that well. But there is no indication that that is not still, comparatively few. As I said. This does NOT diminish Christ’s work and the value of it. How much more valuable and wonderful is a price paid for one lovely, desired Bride than all for a thousand brides? The King can have whoever and however many He wishes, but His love is specific. Even then, His Bride will be beautiful beyond description and multitudinous beyond human counting.

Thanks for bring that other part up Jonathan. And if it’s any consolation, my brother may not be Johnny, but my uncle is. And get this, my brother’s name is Luke. The middle name isn’t right though. Get it?

I think that any talk of how many will be saved is highly presumptive on our part and should be scrubbed from our language as Christians. We know what God’s desire is – that none should persish but ALL would have eternal life and that God loved the WHOLE world that he sent his Son to die for them, not to condemn the world but save it.
This should be our desire as well. Our language ought to reflect the desires of God and instead of reveling in the notion that God would see fit to save even a few of us miserable wretches or that hell will be full so that God receives even more glory is blashphemy, I think (not saying this is your position, SJ, but it is one that many if not most Calvinists hold).

Why can’t it be enough that we simply desire what God desires and leave it at that?

peace,
Chad

God’s desire does not equate to human reality.

Rick, while I understand the reasoning behind a statement like this I do not think citing an example from the primeval era makes it so. What’s more, it suggests that in the end, human desires can thrwart God’s desires.
What we can say with certainty is that God loves the world, died for the world, desires none should perish, that in the end there is a “great mulitude, too many to count” and that in the very end there is a river of life flowing out of the city with trees lining both banks whose leaves are for the healing of all the nations (Rev. 21&22).
We should revel in the mystery that is God’s love and grace and hope for what God hopes for – that none will perish. Will some? Probably. But that is by their choice, not God’s, and even that does not by necessity limit God’s reach beyond the grave.

peace.

Rick,
That may be true of this present salvation. But as I have argued elsewhere, that is only one facet of a multi-faceted salvation (it omits, IOW, the past and future realities that are God’s).

…and what Scripture teaches is that God desires none should perish but all would have life and that in the end we will all be surprised (the sheep and the goats, the river of life running OUT OF the city, etc.). Therefore, teaching and preaching that our desires ought to model God’s desires (which is the only point I am trying to make), isn’t only biblical it is central to the heart of God.

Rick said,

To save people by judicial fiat without their participation is redemptive solataire.

I say, “Hmmm…”

Chad you misquote the scripture by not presenting it in context. I agree with Rick, God’s will is inclusive but the fact is that many will reject his salvation.

John 3:16-18 for God so loved ithe world, hat he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world mto condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

He is indeed not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance, which is why Christ’s substitutionary atonement was effective for all mankind. However, it is only efficatious for those who believe.

I think it’s interesting that you bring up the surprising outcome in the sheep/goat analogy our Lord gave. The goats were surprised because they were cast from His presence, right?

Nathanael-
The surprise comes becomes both parties, the sheep and the goats, are ignorant of who Jesus is. Yes, in part the surprise comes by the judgment given but the real surprise is that even to people who were ignorant (the sheep) Jesus says, “Enter.”

And if we are surprised when it all plays out, it will be pleasantly.

Agreed.

grace and peace.

Gotta go eat lunch. I am very much enjoying this conversation and appreciate everyone’s loving hearts. We can have meaningful disagreements on these things and still be brothers and sisters in Christ.

If you are interested here is a link to a sermon I preached just a few weeks ago that gets at the heart of what I am attempting to say here in short quips. The title is The Truth About You.

http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/the-truth-about-you/

peace,
Chad

Chad,

I’ll wait for your response, but from what you said to John, your stance seems far more broad than is possible in light of Scripture. What it really almost sounds like is an incongruous mixture unlimited atonement/hypercalvinism. It both is inclusive beyond what Scripture tells, and by such might suppose that there be little point in preaching for Christ’s work trumped even God’s foreknown and vividly described judgment of the unbelieving in the future.

You may not be saying that, but that seems to be where your statements lead.

It both is inclusive beyond what Scripture tells, and by such might suppose that there be little point in preaching for Christ’s work trumped even God’s foreknown and vividly described judgment of the unbelieving in the future.

The Election is Christ Jesus… it is He who was before and through all creation came. Christ did nothing the Father did not already do…

So the statement you make is even more confusing to say that Christ’s work triumphed God’s foreknowledge of judgment..l. because it did. Man was condemned in their sin and God knew that, and also foreknew Christ would overcome sin and death.

As far as “inclusive”, I also see that limiting the propitiation that was from Christ is an affront to the Cross itself. TO limit the Blood of Jesus should be one of the greatest sins there is.

All have the opportunity to respond to the calling that is Christ who draws all men to Himself. Accept Him or reject Him and receive the due of the choice.

God did the work, there is nothing more to do accept trust in Christ and His finished work.
iggy

Jesus is saying that only he can rightly divide the two groups, and that those who assume they are “sheep” need to be vigilant.

excellent point, Phil

Nathan-
Hey, I went to your link (nice webpage, btw) but could not connect to your blog. I wanted to ask you if you attend Mosaic in LA? My brother, Ryan Holtz, has been attending there and volunteering on some stuff and involved in a bible study here and there.

I have been following what you all are doing out there and I think it is fantastic.

peace! And sorry for your headache

Phil,

In a strange, and rare turn of events, I find myself saying: exactimo!

Whiule it is extremly importnat to keep things (like what has been discussed) in Biblical perspective as much as possible, I would much rather see vigilance in myself and you to be holy and genuine “sheep” as instructed also in 2 Cor. 13:5 to “examine ourselves”. Or is 1 Corinthians? Whichever, you know the one I mean.

Walker out

Rick,

I was going to leave, but you put a stumbling block of thought in my way. I’ll pray for you.

Something you said got me thinking:

Additionally, it would be very curious that a God who is love would only choose a few to be saved when He could have offered it to everyone.

Indeed. That is curious. Briefly, let’s assume, for the sake of examining ourselves, that man is indeed dead in sin and the thoughts of his heart are only evil continually. Okay. It would be more curious still that a God who is love would leave it up to man to choose, knowing that only a few if any would do so, when He could have caused it Himself and opened their graves at His discretion.

To define “God is love” based on amounts or numbers saved whether by their own free will or His sovereign will can be dangerous. for we know that “few there will be”. That is certain no matter what we believe about HOW they find the gate. So the term “God is love” can be used to argue against either FW or PD.

God is love. Praise God for that Truth! But our definition of love cannot be the basis to define God. God must be our basis to define love. That being said, knowing that few will be saved, what is Love? The question then comes back to what is man? And what is God? Most any Scriptural description we get of man as a whole and as an individual is, to say the least, not that flattering and to be blunt stinks of the grave in which he lies. While most any description of God is infinite and absolute holiness.

Not an argument toward you at all Rick. Just a rumination.

for we know that “few there will be”.

SJ, again, we do not know this. You think you know this, that is all. When you make statements like this it detracts from all your other attestations to God’s sovereignty and freedom to as God wishes.

We do know this Chad. That is the problem with your statement.

Again, I believe what you are using as proof for that position is speaking of this present salvation. Let us all hope for the sake of the billions who do not find the gate that your interpretation is wrong.

Question: Does the mentally handicapped person who has never had a cognitive thought in his or her life die without ever finding the gate? What is their fate?

peace,
Chad

Kyle-
It’s an interpretation, as is all things once we start discussing something written 2000 years ago (or 20 minutes ago).

Perhaps you missed the part of my question that states the handicapped person has never had a cognitive thought. How do they excercise faith in Christ if they have never heard, understood or profess? What is such a person’s fate? And yes, there is a reason I am asking this.

Perhaps you missed the part of my question that states the handicapped person has never had a cognitive thought. How do they excercise faith in Christ if they have never heard, understood or profess? What is such a person’s fate? And yes, there is a reason I am asking this”

The only true answer is that God’s justice and love and all his facets are perfect…

Chad, How do you know they have never heard, understood or profess and how do you know what cognitive thoughts are in their minds? You are not in their minds and neither am I…That is why it is in the hands of God.

OK, what is your reason for asking?

In Calvinism we have Universalism. Calvin saw this issue and developed “Limited Atonement”. In doing this he confused forgiveness with salvation.

I can forgive someone, but if they do not accept it, they are not receiving this forgiveness… further if I forgave and then told them to come into my Kingdom and be an adopted son, and they refused, they do not receive the benefits of salvation.

Yet, the work was done at the Cross… forgiveness was given to all people. Calvin saw the awesomeness of this yet could not reconcile that those who did not live righteously could be also saved. Again… confusing forgiveness, the taking away of the sin, with the imparted life that came through the resurrection.

Without the death and resurrection, we are not saved. Calvinism mixes all into the Cross… which is part one of the saving act of God. Without the Life of Christ imparted to us we are only forgiven dead men.

Read through Acts and some received the baptism of John for forgiveness, yet had not receive Christ…

I believe it possible that one can receive half the Gospel and miss out on salvation.

iggy

Johnathan,

I thought I already had. In the Book of Acts Apollos had on heard and received John’s baptism of repentance, but had yet to hear the full gospel of the Risen Christ.

It is then the fullness of salvation came to be in Apollos.

It was then Apollos received the salvation form God.

iggy

My first real prayer was, “Lord, I don’t want to be saved. But I know I need to be saved. Give me a desire to be saved.”
And He gave me a seeking heart. Months later, I finally surrendered my will, my life, my eternal state, my everything to the pure, spotless slain and risen Lamb of God.

Hallelujah!

So when God says He is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance, He means “all types”? And when God says All Scripture is given by God… He means “all types” of Scripture but not the entirety of Scripture.

That is a more careless contextualization than most emergents are accused of.

It amounts to a very subjective interpretive process that assigns different meanings to the same word when and where it suits a theological purpose. It also subliminally widens the gap between the “learned” and the “unlearned”, the clergy and the laity, and the ecclesiastical bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

If it takes a degree in Greek and Hebrew to uncover that Jesus only died for a small fragment of humanity in order to glorify himself, then it is contextualization. Can you imagine a father seeing his 8 children dying in a pit, he lets down a rope to two of them, and that satifies him and he goes home and doesn’t even attempt to rescue the other 6?

Everything we know about Christ is at odds with that portrayal.

Phil – that is so “Boydish” of you. I agree, God knows futue history but he does not interven in everything!

One thing you and I adamantly agree upon, Chad, the gospel is for everyone and our wonderful Savior tasted death for every man! Paul says in Romans that when a man dies for his enemies, that is true love. God did not die for a few of His enemies, He died fo ALL (and I do mean ALL) of His enemies!

Praise His name!

Kyle-
John 8 is a big chapter. What, specifically, are you referring to?

But we see the fruit of the plan in people lives when you see repentance and faith.

Yet, according to Calvinists, even this can be decieving.
When you make election all about individuals you make any semblance of assurance impossible.

Re: “Limited Atonement”.

Ironic that this “doctrine” is foregrounded by people today.

Didn’t Calvin bury it deep within his writings on the Holy Spirit?

Here is a good link for John 6 really long but good.
http://vintage.aomin.org/johnchapter6.html

Also we can stand on the promise about backsliding. I am one of those black sheep, really really black. But God never left me nor forsaked me. He is going to finish the work that He started. I do agree that when people leave the church it is to show that they are not of us. Christianity is not just a one time repentance and prayer but a life long repentance and a life long “sinners” prayer. As you walk with the Lord longer your assurance grows. Assurance can be very subjective at times and grows as a chrsitian grows. that is why we are told to examine ourselves a lot by Paul, Peter, John to make sure of our calling and election.

I think it is great assurance. When I was out there doing worldly things I had no assurance of salvation but through God’s grace He brought repentance back into my life and reminded me that I am His child. This is why we can never say who the elect are, we do not know the sercet things of God. If a person leaves the church the only thing we can do is pray and admonish the brother and only Christ can bring Him back.

Chad: That’s not assurance, that is cause for psychosis.

I shared that with my wife. She sends her thanks. It explains a lot (about me).

man im so crap at the pc

Can you imagine a father seeing his 8 children dying in a pit, he lets down a rope to two of them, and that satifies him and he goes home and doesn’t even attempt to rescue the other

Hmm but that was my point!! A all knowing God threw them in there to begin with..

Hi Chad not just Calvinism but also Orginal Sin..Do you think its Biblical?

I heard a sermon by a person who argued that Adam and Eve introduced death into the world but not orginal sin…

Chad,

I think overall you are making a common mistake by conflating “reconciled” with “justification”, “regeneration”, “salvation”. To be reconciled is not synonymous with being saved. To be reconciled is to take away the enmity between parties. God the Father unilaterally reconciled the World through the death of His son. The enmity between man and God is now put away.

2 Cor 5:18-19 -Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Salvation is now possible, but not automatic. One must accept the gift of salvation through faith. Any and all men can now approach the Father through the work of the Son. Again, God did this by a unilateral demonstration of His grace, but the reconciliation was manward. God has unilaterally forgiven us. The way to God is now open via forgiveness of sins, but not all men accept that forgiveness. This is why Paul says since God is reconciled to us we need to reconcile to Him.

2 Cor 5:20 – Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Paul and other writers also differentiate between reconciliation and salvation. They are related but not synonymous.

Romans 5:10 – For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

1 John 5:11-12 – And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

So although God’s reconciliation is universal, salvation is not.

Hmm but that was my point!! A all knowing God threw them in there to begin with..

Wow, that’s quite a leap. God gave humans a real choice, and we chose poorly. The thing with love is that is must be freely given and freely received to truly be love. God could have created a universe in which there was no chance for evil, but in that universe there would be no real chance for His creation to love him either.

I think that creating humans God did take a real risk. A risk that would lead to Jesus dying on the cross. A risk that meant He would be intimately involved in His creation.

I heard a sermon by a person who argued that Adam and Eve introduced death into the world but not orginal sin…

I would say that death came as a consequence of sin and death are closely linked. Sin is separation from God, and life comes from God breathing into His creation. So any separation from that source will lead to death.

I think overall you are making a common mistake by conflating “reconciled” with “justification”, “regeneration”, “salvation”. To be reconciled is not synonymous with being saved. To be reconciled is to take away the enmity between parties. God the Father unilaterally reconciled the World through the death of His son. The enmity between man and God is now put away.

Full reconciliation takes two parties. The Epistles were written to Christians – that’s why Paul and other authors can rightly say that the audience they are writing to have already been reconciled. I don’t think we can necessarily draw a distinction between reconciliation and salvation. If anything, I think Paul would say that reconciliation is part of salvation, not a separate thing.

By the way, I don’t really disagree with the sentiment you’re getting at. I think that God’s wrath was fully satisfied on the cross. The way some people present things, they make it sound like God is still angry at sinners.

12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

The sermon i heard said, that yes sin did enter into the world in the sense were now capable of sinning, but its death that the verse says spread from one person to everyone…

He also said if you believe in orginal sin and the idea that everyone is totally depraved from the get go,how can it be that the bible mentions people becoming more sinful? How can totally be added to??

“how can it be that the bible mentions people becoming more sinful?”

No one becomes “more sinful”, they just become more proficient at its expression. But sinners can and do seek God. My question to Calvinists is “If only God saves a sinner by his choice, what good does your arguing do you? It will never change one thing.”

However I confront their error because I believe it does despite to the truth on many fronts, including limiting evangelism, emasculating prayer, doctrinal self righteousness, and directing an unchristian view of sinners and their plight.

Get started on those, there are others.

You would have to say why it does those things you list. Beceause of course it does not. The call goes to all people, seed goes on all soil, but God grows the seed.

Please tell me if sinners are TOTALLY depraved, why do some reformed blogs criticize TOTALLY depraved sinners when they sin?

What is a Totally Depraved sinner supposed to do – stop sinning??

Goofy Theology.

Just because God commands it does not mean we can do it. That is the whole point of the cross. So when the bible says that there is no one good, no not even one, no one seeks after God. You just think that means what?

Well, that whole passage where Paul says that, he is quoting various passages out of Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiates. He is getting to the point that both Gentiles and Jews have seriously screwed up. I don’t think he’s making a universal proclamation about total depravity. I think he’s trying to drill down to a major point of Romans – no group can claim superiority over an other group. We all need God and we all have messed up.

To say that Paul is saying that no one has the ability to choose between God and evil seems to be an odd point to take away. Especially, since the parts of the OT he is quoting from are basically books that urge readers to make correct choices in their lives. In fact, earlier in Romans, Paul specifically warns against thinking that says we might as well sin because we’re covered. No, Paul says we still are responsible for our choices.

So you can love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strenght??

Just because God commands it does not mean we can do it. That would make the cross worthless. That was the whole point of the law, to show us we can not keep the commands of God. Or am I miss understanding the law?

“To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect”

John Owen

Yes I agree, abortion should be outlawed. Murder is wrong. My point is that even though morals can be legislated and are, ever law is a moral, they will not change the heart and people will still seek out what they want reagrdless of laws.

Kyle: Just because God commands it does not mean we can do it.

Kyle, that is THE rub. To demand something of someone who is incapable of doing what is being commanded and THEN punishing them for not obeying is utter cruelty, mockery and spitfuness and makes God out to be the ultimate cosmic bully.

Even ardent Calvinists try to reason out of this quandry with weasle words about ability vs. desire.

No true calvinist weasle out of this. They love the bible to much and take Him at His word. If God says it it is true.

That is what God says, that we have no ability to do it. If you don’t like this God then you don’t like the bible.

Saying we can’t keep the law perfectly isn’t the same as saying we have no ability to obey it whatsoever. Again, this sort of dualistic thinking isn’t in Scripture.

The above should read:

…does not give us an excuse to NOT strive for perfection…

Kyle-

What does it mean to be “conformed to the image of Christ?” Do you believe that is going on right now in you?

Just because we can not stop sinning does not give an excuse for sinning. Just becasue I am evil and will sin again does not give me an excuse for it. I am reposnbile for me and my actions.

This just doesn’t make sense. You can’t have it both ways. If we have no real choice but to sin, why would God hold us accountable for it. Even saying we have responsibility implies we have a choice.

*sigh* I am having trouble typing today. Above should read: Love OUR enemies while God does not.

Gonna go guys. Kyle, I have no idea what your trying to say. Take care.

Why does Chad have to be reading McLaren to raise a critique of a relatively young articulation of the many ways we can speak about the atonement?

It’s not like McLaren is actually “leading a rebellion” against this doctrine. The critique has been there for a long, long time.

Mclearn comopres penial sub to a man forgiving His wife and then kick his dog. But there is no greater love than to lay down ones life?

This is not accurate… Brian does not deny PS he affirms it. He is critiquing the way it is presented at times. That God tells us to not kill and love and then kills His own Son in a blood appeasing human sacrifice.

Brian is critiquing the inaccurate ways people present it and suggests looking at the broader picture and the more full view.

iggy

Kyle,

Again you also misrepresent Brian’s view…

IF all PS is as presented in many churches IT IS then only cosmic child abuse.

It is not and that is Brian’s point. Do you think it is Cosmic child abuse? Do you teach that?

iggy

Kyle,
For typo reasons and comprehension reasons, please read your statements before you hit the “Submit” button. It is sometimes hard to understand what you are saying. It helps to slow down a bit, I’ve found.

Also, just a thought, Scot McKnight recommends a book here that I never read. But judging by the tone of your statements here, it might be a good thing to consider.

As a reader of these comments, you must realize that Chad and Phil and Rick and the others you are conversing with are thoroughly informed on all of these doctrinal issues. And their answers indicate more maturity and tact, whether or not one agrees with them.

Just a few thoughts, brother…
Shalom

Kyle: That is what God says, that we have no ability to do it.

Chapter and verse, please. Chapter and verse.

Kyle: No true calvinist weasle out of this. They love the bible to much and take Him at His word. If God says it it is true.

Oh yes, no body but Calvinists love the bible

Kyle,
Not to be a smart-arse (it’s not cursing if you spell it with a Scottish accent) you said

If Brian, does not hold to the cosmic child abuse view of Penial Sub, please point me to some of his works that state this?

The onus of such a claim comes upon the one who make it. You said Mr. McLaren believes PS is cosmic child abuse. Others have said it is not. You are in the position of backing up your statement.

Actually, McLaren was pointing out Steve Chalke’sdescription of it to make the point that PS can be problematic and difficult for people.

Even if you (wrongly) believe the PS articulation of atonement is the only way we can talk about atonement, you have to admit the critiques demonstrate how PS sounds to many people.

That’s not a denial on McLaren’s part. It’s honestyabout our theology and how people can and have understood/misunderstood it.

(An aside: The fact that John Piper then tried to lay the wood to Tony Jones (!) and McLaren for Steve Chalke’s words was juvenile, dishonest and manipulative.

He even said he was “hurt” by such a description of PS. That’s silly, irrational and, again, manipulative.)

To be clear, I don’t agree with everything B.McLaren says or writes, but I do think critiques should go where they are deserved, not where armchair, self-appointed gatekeepers and their sycophants whine about theological skies falling.

Also, I don’t reject PS. I DO reject any position that says PS is the only true way a Christian can talk about the atonement. It’s one of many beautiful ways we can speak of the multi-faceted and most powerful moment in the history of the cosmos.

but is very crucial for without then the atonment is lost and we are still in our sins.

I wouldn’t even go that far. The church got along quite well in the 1500 years before Penal Substitutionary Atonement was theorized. Chalke is right, though, that the way PSA is presented by many churches today, particularly those of the Calvinist stripe, comes off as cosmic child abuse and makes absolutely no sense when viewed in toto with the rest of scripture.

Kyle, I would note that the method in which you are quoting some scriptures, while completely neglecting others, is the basis of systematic (i.e. man-made, flawed) theology. Particularly in your picking and choosing of whether parsing of Jesus & Paul is literal or figurative to fit a particular view, rather than allowing textual analysis and good hermeneutics provide good exegesis (even if it appears to contradict). When viewed in toto, scripture makes it clear that God has preknowledge AND man has free will. Rather than accept what appears to be a contradiction at face value, Calvinism (and other -isms) chooses one over the other, introducing a fatal flaw into that system of thinking.

Also – to an earlier point – Peter’s use of quoting the Psalms and relating them to Judas was a method of Remez, Jesus’ favorite teaching technique, in which you have to go back to the quoted text to find the subtext of what he is saying. In this case, he was pronouncing a curse on Judas, not trying to point to predictive prophecy.

“To be clear, I don’t agree with everything B.McLaren says or writes” – me too.

” but I do think critiques should go where they are deserved, not where armchair, self-appointed gatekeepers and their sycophants whine about theological skies falling.” – ouch.

What scripture I have forgotten to use in this little study of man. Do the change the context of any of the verse I listed. Look at the context of each and it is pretty clear that the natural man can not obey God?

Kyle: “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot;

Let’s look at what this verse says and does not say. The passage says “ cannot submit to”. It does not say “cannot perform”. To “submit” is not necessarily the same as to “do”. It is clear, particularly from the verse you quoted, that the unregenerate cannot **submit** to God’s law, .i.e., voluntarily place ones’ self under the authority of. The unregenerate are hostile to and at odds with God by definition. However, it does not say the unregenerate are unable to obey God’s law. This can be done unintentionally, by accident even. God has instilled a conscience in all. Millions of people do not steal on a daily basis. Many don’t commit adultery, etc. Jesus said even the evil know how to do good to their children (Luke 11:13). So to say we cannot obey the law is not the same as saying we cannot submit to it. (No one is arguing we can keep the law all the time and perfectly, just that God can be obeyed by the unregenerate from time to time). I can outwardly do many things some one tells me to do and not be submitted to them at all. Ref: Isaiah 29:13 – “Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their wordsAnd honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,”

Kyle,

I appreciate where you are coming from, but to still claim that without PS the atonement is lost I still believe goes too far.

Christus Victor is a way of speaking of the atonement that gives us atonement and the conquering of sin on a cosmic/macro scale–which humans are included in.

What do we do with the simple fact that the economy of salvation in the church UNTIL THE MIDDLE CHURCH was primarily a polyphony of theories: moral exemplar/ransom/ and a budding Christus Victor–all of which grounded the atonement in the lived life of discipleship, the role of the church and the role of Christ as The Word who is the Maker and Re-Maker of Creation?

It’s not until Anselm that we get baseline Satisfaction theory that isn’t even PS in language.

Arguably, A’s theory is deeply indicative of his feudal socio-cultural context. (i.e. the ideas of positional “honor” etc. etc. If one considers the rise of the modern nation-state and the preeminence of “law” over feudal positional social theories we witness interesting things with lawyer John Calvin’s work with Satisfaction theory.)

Anyway: My initial question was:
What do we do with the simple fact that the economy of salvation in the church UNTIL THE MIDDLE CHURCH was primarily a polyphony of theories: moral exemplar/ransom/ and a budding Christus Victor–all of which grounded the atonement in the lived life of discipleship, the role of the church and the role of Christ as The Word who is the Maker and Re-Maker of Creation?

Also – to an earlier point – Peter’s use of quoting the Psalms and relating them to Judas was a method of Remez, Jesus’ favorite teaching technique, in which you have to go back to the quoted text to find the subtext of what he is saying. In this case, he was pronouncing a curse on Judas, not trying to point to predictive prophecy

“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas

fulfilled??

Ramez is just using words/ideas from other scripture, with the speaker being aware that his audience would know the orginal scripture…

A example ( ive read online) says when the children sang Hosanna, and annoyed the pharisees,Jesus replies to the pharisees with words that hint of Psalm 8:2…

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the verse the children are saying are prophecies..