Post number 4 (following 'God's nature - obscured'):
I haven’t written a post in this series for a while. In the meantime I’ve been having some great discussions on two relevant topics - which I’ll quickly mention here. At some point I may modify my earlier posts to reflect these subtle changes in my thoughts :)
Firstly I’ve been challenged to recognise the value and limitations of both modernism and post-modernism. The value of modernism is in its drive to know everything, including the details of reality. But it is limited by pride and an excessive focus on ‘reductionism’. The value of post-modernism is in recognising the flaws of modernism, becoming aware of the integral nature of bias and worldview and subjectivity in ‘knowledge’, and becoming aware of system synthesis knowledge (above and beyond reductionistic knowledge). But it is limited by its rejection of absolute truth and inability to challenge the bias it recognises to change. One day I will write a proper article on this, but until then I hope my posts reflect a balanced approach to knowledge pursuit :)
Secondly I’ve been researching the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’, and I’ve recognised the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’ is not so much about a ‘non-physical’ aspect to reality (they definitely did NOT believe this was true!), but IS more about an ‘eternal’ aspect to reality. Referring to ‘spirits’ is not really defining what they are, but it is defining their nature and function - i.e. eternal. Exactly how our souls are eternal is up for debate - maybe there IS a separate ‘thing’ called a spirit, but that is definitely not clear in Scripture.
With that in mind, lets talk a little about human nature, in preparation for discussing how God’s nature interacts with ours. This post (along with the next) will be unashamedly deterministic ;) I'll deal with the issue of human responsibility in post number 6.
Remember I'm very keen for your input (and disagreements)!
Human Nature
Humans are created uniquely in the image of God, a pinnacle in the creative expression of His character.
This means we are conscious ‘spirits’, but are created primarily to interact with the temporal fleshly realm. Our souls are thus dualistic in nature - having both spiritual and fleshly aspects and purposes.
Being spiritual means two things. Firstly, we have the potential for spiritual senses - altering our perceptions of reality/pleasure, moulding our character, giving spiritual aspects to our wills/desires/emotions, etc.
Secondly, even when our body dies, we are eternal, meaning our souls and characters are contiguous throughout life and death.
Total Depravity
Although God’s character is potentially perceivable spiritually, our fleshly perception is infinitely more influential on our characters than our spiritual perception. This is because we were created to experience and interact primarily with this realm.
Thus ANY evil in the fleshly realm inevitably results in a perception of evil which cannot be combated by mere human ‘spiritual’ perception of God’s goodness. This means that, if any evil exists in the fleshly realm, every single human is destined to fall.
Total Depravity states that all of humanity can ONLY fall and develop sinful characters (collectively known as the ‘sin nature’ of humanity) in the face of life with evil, and that faith is thus impossible.
This was demonstrated by Adam’s Fall, but not CAUSED by Adam’s fall. The curse did not involve forcing Adam’s offspring to have a different ‘fallen’ nature to what Adam originally had. It merely involved a further propagation of evil, which demonstrates we all have the same nature as Adam. This is why God can judge us ahead of time ‘in Adam’, because Adam was a true representative of us.
For humanity to sanctify and develop holiness and faith, God must do something - either supply full total fleshly saturation of His character (eliminates evil, and thus the possibility of faith in the face of evil), OR powerful spiritual perception of His character (beyond our spirit’s natural capabilities).
Limited Atonement
God requires the existence of evil (and thus human total depravity), and His justice subsequently demands that this evil and sin be dealt with (which is why all men are judged in Adam).
God’s justice is itself a necessary expression of God’s love - possibly the most necessary aspect, because without it the very importance of God’s character to our pleasure is thrown into question. Since God is infinitely important to the universe, sin is infinitely terrible, and only an infinitely terrible display can demonstrate this. Infinite suffering of humanity, or finite suffering of an infinitely important person, is required.
But His love not only desires justice, but ultimately for all mankind to delight in His goodness. How can these things be reconciled?
God Himself - the most infinitely important person in existence - came to demonstrate the seriousness of sin on our behalf, by suffering and dying - the atonement.
The atonement allows God to forgo the removal and punishment of any evil/sin that He sees fit - and so demonstrate other aspects of His love - without compromising His justice.
The atonement is as expansive as God can have it. We know God desires it for the whole world. It is offered to the whole world. It is sufficient for the whole world. And the whole world is required to accept and love it.
But the atonement is none-the-less ‘limited’ in that it only actually keeps a select few people from Hell. Since God can mould all characters as He sees fit, this must be a deliberate act on God’s part, known as election or predestination.
Unconditional Election
The election has two huge implications. It means that God deliberately separates humanity into two groups, including a select group of specific people to be in Hell, AS PART of His entire aim in all that He does - His expression of Himself, in relation to other beings (I’ll discuss this more later).
And if Hell is inescapable once there, it means that this expression is in fact targeted at a select group of specific people in heaven, and NOT at all of creation.
How does this election work? Scriptures teach that God does not elect based on any intrinsic merit. It also teaches that EVERY aspect of our souls (including faith) has merit attached.
Thus election cannot be based on foreknowledge of our existing/inevitable faith or sanctification. But it must be based on something, since God is far from random!
God has chosen a particular collection of people to develop a particular set of characters, via particular processes, in relationship to the complexities of the rest of His creation (including other people) - SO THAT the end result is the greatest possible expression of Himself to as many people as possible.
Summary
- Humans have a dual nature - spiritual, but focused primarily on the temporal fleshly world
- This means that evil in the fleshly world inevitably leads to humanity falling - Total Depravity
- We are judged in Adam because Adam is our perfect representative - we would have all behaved as Adam did
- The atonement demonstrates God’s justice, freeing Him from demonstrating it in other ways (e.g. removing or punishing evil immediately)
- The atonement is evidentially limited, which must be a deliberate decision on God’s behalf - meaning some are elected, others are not.
- The election is unconditional, and yet our faith is ascribed merit in Scripture, meaning the election cannot be based on ‘foreknowledge’ of inevitable faith.
- The election is not random, but is ultimately based on God's drive to use complex processes to maximise the display of His character to as many people as possible.
The Series
- The Soul
- God's nature
- God's nature - obscured
- Human nature (this post)
- More to come...
Lots of good points, but you are tackle to many different subjects in one post.
ReplyDeleteI think, less is better.
One exhausting debate on one subject profits more then touching many superficially.
Paul
Good Post Joshua!
ReplyDeleteEven though I do the same thing, I agree with Paul that, maybe, we should break up our posts into smaller manageable pieces. Unfortunately, a lot of our points may get lost or ignored during our discussion.
With that said, I would like to address the idea of the non-biblically supported belief in Election/ Predestination.
First of all, Election or predestination, as laid out within the Christian Church, began with the false doctrine of Calvinism, within the 15 and 16th century. Before that, it was not even taught as a viable belief system because it went against the nature of God.
It is a result of what happens when people try to interpret the scriptures, strictly from an erroneous interpreted version or biased background. The same thing is happening today.
I must interject that Calvin was not the first to do this but will be held responsible for further fracturing the Church through the branch known as Protestantism. The first ones to create the first great fracture in Christianity were the predecessors of the Catholic Church which allowed the influx of paganism during the 4th century.
Ask any of my Jewish brothers and they will tell you that predestination within the spiritual aspect of our lives is sacrilegious and borderline blasphemy. This is due to the fact that God will not deliberately create a situation where the ONLY outcome is sin.
However, within the areas that do not directly affect our spiritual outcome, predestination could be found, such as the material aspects of our lives. This is only done when God deems it necessary as a test to either increase ones faith.
The following are the beliefs of Jews and the first century Church.
Sadducees, according to Josephus, held that all the phenomena of this world were due to chance and they denied the existence of a divine providence.
The Essenes attributed everything material to the will of God, and, exaggerating the conception of divine providence, denied to man any material initiative.
The Pharisees, fully aware that predestination precluded free-will, adopted a centralist view, declaring that man could be subject to predestination in his material life, but is completely free in his spiritual life.
This view is expressed in the teaching of R. Akiba (Abot iii. 15): "All is foreseen, yet freedom is granted"; and in the similar saying of R. Ḥanina, "All is in the power of God, except the fear of God" (Ber. 33b; Niddah 16b).
The present day teachings of predestination are pulled erroneously from the writings of Paul, WHO WAS A PHARISEE.
The following example of an exclusive predestination belief can be found in the Talmud, the legend concerning Eleazar ben Pedat. Eleazar, being in the worst of circumstances, asked God how long he would suffer from his poverty. The answer, received in a dream, was, "My son, wouldst thou have Me overthrow the world?" (Ta'an. 25a); the meaning being that Eleazar's poverty could not be helped, he had been predestined to be poor because he had the propensity to love God, regardless of the circumstances.
Bottom line: Yeshua and Paul did not believe or teach election or predestination as present day Calvinistic Christianity. If their beliefs were as as the modern day Calvinistic Chrisitians, would you think they would have made it a big deal out of it?
As for the human spirit, Jews and most Messianic Jews believe that there isn't any separate human entity known as a spirit. The human spirit is an extension of ones existence. We believe that believe that God created man to represent his existence, Body, Mind, Spirit, Soul. In the same way, God is Echad, so is man. We began as perfect creations but lost that perfect dimensionality when we disobeyed. We will again be that perfect creation when God transforms us during the return of the Meshiach.
ReplyDeleteNo Doubt:
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. But I must say from the outset that I disagree for Scriptural reasons with nearly every point you made with respect to my views. I assume you intend to apply the term 'Calvinism' to the views I've expressed, but if you are merely discussing the extreme 'modern' concept, forgive my rebuttals :)
There is so much to say (much of which I have already said in my series of articles, and elsewhere on the site) that I won't regurgitate it here. But I think it is unfair to allow your statements (many of which are unsubstantiated at present) to lie without a rebuttal. I hope this comes across as friendly discussion. While I am very passionate about determinism (as you can tell!) I can also understand other balanced scriptural positions.
First, please do not state that my beliefs go against the nature of God, without substantiating your claims a lot more and allowing some discussion! I clearly do NOT think this is true, and after having many discussions with many people of varied beliefs, I am certain our views of God's nature are also very similar.
Second, I believe Paul and Jesus DID make a HUGE deal about this in Scripture! I see lots of support for it, and none opposing it. Scriptural arguments for 'using our will' have no impact on my belief in determinism, because I believe both. I'm not denying the importance of having our own character which is moulded according to our experiences, and results in a will which makes actual non-coerced decisions. I'm contending for Free Agency AND for determinism over our character. Much of what I'm writing in this series supports this mixed view (which I consider very different to a 'centralist' view that limits God's sovereignty over certain aspects of reality).
Third, early Calvinism is not a false doctrine. I doubt you know what early Calvinism really was - not many people do. In fact, the 'five points' of Calvinism were not at all a comprehensive statement of doctrine. They were very mild and interpretable statements intended to anchor the church onto important Scriptural concepts which were being rejected in the current volatile church environment. The Arminianists had drawn up a statement of five points - again very mild and interpretable and not exactly heretical. However it needed addressing because it represented an increasingly militant push to abandon important Biblical truths in a variety of dangerous heresies (including the more radical arm of the arminianist spectrum). The five points of Calvinism do not even directly contradict the five points of arminianism, but rather draw attention to balancing Scriptural truths. The point I'm making is that both early (balanced) Calvinism and Arminianism have a set of statements that are relatively mild and very scriptural - and not even mutually exclusive. It was the radical variants (initially Arminianism, later Calvinism, and today both) that are heresies.
Fourth, I'm not sure I trust the modern 'Jewish' biases much more than other biases (it is valuable certainly, but not without fault). I care about what Jesus and Paul and Peter actually thought, without bias. As you yourself said, there was very little in the way of division between material / spiritual worlds in the traditional hebrew mindset. How could they allow predestination in one and yet freedom in the other? It makes no sense where there is no division. Also, Paul's own view was expressed decades after he was converted (in a very deterministic way, I must add, which surely influenced his theology) - I'm convinced his Scriptural views were no longer in line with the Pharisees.
ReplyDeleteFifth, it is simplistic to state that God would never create a situation where sin is the only outcome. That is a very interpretable statement - the words 'create', 'situation', 'sin', 'only', and 'outcome' can have many meanings. For example, I do NOT believe that God Himself has any sin or evil in Himself, or that He Himself ever sins, or that evil is ever actually (ultimately) evil - it always results in ultimate 'good' - or that the ultimate outcome of all of reality includes any 'evil' or sin. But I DO believe God deliberately allows a temporary reality to exist (this current life) where there is no possibility of absolutely everyone being absolutely perfect. In other words, the only possible reality RIGHT NOW includes sin to some degree, but the ultimate outcome of reality (even this 'sin') will be good and originates only from holy and loving intentions. There is lots of scriptural support for this view, and none to oppose it.
That said, radical modern Calvinism is wrong in many ways. Some are theologically wrong (denying that Christ desires, in some way, for all to be saved, for example). Others are correct in the details of their theology, but are wrong in their emphasis and would be uncomfortable emphasising things the way Scripture itself does (for example, the necessity of our prayers to bring about God's plans). Others are wrong in the way they let it impact their holiness (for example, the fact that God has destined some for salvation should envirograte our evangelism, rather than kill it). But the same could be said about Arminianism and Centralist / Mixed views (including my own).
Ultimately what I want to do is take hold of ALL the Biblical truths / principles and delight in them ALL at once! I believe determinism is the best way to do this, but I don't care as long as you do the same ;)
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, regardless of how it comes across, you can be assured that I have nothing but love and respect for your and all believers in the Messiah. I even have respect SOMETIMES for others. :-) LOL Therefore, let's not talk of offending each other again because it typically doesn't happen with me. With that said, let's agree that if something offends or angers, then we will let each other know, otherwise, no offense. Agreed?
Before I can discuss this further, I would like to ask one question.
At what point does a doctrine become false?
Hi there no doubt.
ReplyDeleteI’m still working on a reply to your other comment - I think it deserves more carefully crafted words than I typically deliver.
But regarding your question here - I think the correct question to ask is ‘at what point does a doctrine differ enough from ours, that we will risk the implications of publicly label it as ‘false’?’
We are fallible humans interpreting God’s words, and are NOT perfectly submissive / receptive to the Holy Spirit’s insight. So our understanding and doctrine will ALWAYS be flawed. All we can say about many other doctrines, is whether we THINK they are LIKELY to be false, given our current understanding.
Also, there are serious implications to labelling another person’s doctrine as ‘false’ - including risking unity, love, fellowship, witness to the world, pride and humility, etc. Obviously these may not happen (especially if all is done in a Christ-like attitude), but they are all risks. Only sometimes will these risks be worth it, and often they are NOT worth it simply because our flawed perception of truth doesn’t quite align with another person’s.
I believe there intensity of public disagreement needs to be tailored to the situation - so that the risks of the (potentially) ‘false’ doctrine are weighed properly against the risks of your public disagreement. I think we do a lot of this very well on this site! This will obviously depend on the publicity of the doctrine and your disagreement, and on the way the doctrine and your disagreement are presented.
But a lot of it depends on your perception of the risks of the doctrine. And this is where most people fall down in the process. They ASSUME they know the risks of the doctrine. Its OK to assume for practicality’s sake SOMETIMES, but as the disagreement begins to risk more and more (i.e. becomes more intense or public), you are obligated to ensure you are correct in your assumptions - because people are notoriously bad at assuming wrongly about another person’s beliefs / worldview / implications. For example, you might assume my beliefs (or those of the Calvinists’) undermines zeal in evangelism or understanding of God’s holiness or man’s responsibility. But I can assure you it does not.
The bottom line is, because of our OWN flawed understandings and the implications of inappropriate disagreements, our intensity of disagreement and discussion needs tailoring MAINLY to the our perceived risks of the other doctrine, rather than the perceived falsehood of it (they are linked, but not the same). And the greater the intensity we are planning, the more careful we have to be to fully understand the other side BEFOREHAND.
Now, another question entirely is whether or not my beliefs or Calvinism are actually 'false' - this question is entirely up to debate.
Oops! I'm sorry Joshua, I thought that this post was posted by Keith.
ReplyDeleteKeith and I have been in dialogue over at Tims and my blog for a while.
Keith, when you said, "the false doctrine of Calvinism", do you mean the TULIP doctrine? Or do you mean that all Calvinism is false?
You said, "It is as a result of what happens when people try to interpret the Scriptures, strictly from a erroneous interpreted version or biased background. The same thing is happening to day."
Well brother, I'm guilty of that, I think that we all have to argue from our perspective whether right or wrong and the Scriptures and the Spirit of the Lord is our judge. If I or we are convicted to be against the Word of God we will certainly repent of our view and adjust to the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are the authority over me and every believer in Jesus Christ.
I am considered to be a Calvinist, although I reject that assumption, but I fully understand the predestination of God from Genesis to Revelation.
I have read some of Calvin's 'Institutes' and his counter part Jacob Arminius, but I'm no expert of either one.
I think that in their time John Calvin was given a higher revelation from the Lord on the election doctrine than Jacob Arminius had.
But today I think that the Lord Jesus has given us the complete understanding and revelation concerning predestination (election).
Predestination in my understanding is simple, 'some were predestined, chosen, elected, while others were rejected.
How do you see that predestination is sacrilegious and borderline blasphemy?
Also, I have been posting against the Catholic Church for many years as the 'Antichrist church' who started in AD 67 by the first Pope Lynus, and they had no predecessors. First was the Christ revealed and shortly after the Antichrist revealed 'the Pope of Rome' to this very day.
And Paul was a believer in Jesus Christ just the same as we are, a brother in Christ and also an Apostle, he was before he got saved a Pharisee and not after.
Well brother, I am not a Messianic Jew and I don't know anything about them, but I am a believer in Jesus Christ and I can tell you everything Him.
Joshua;
ReplyDeleteThe debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has been going for five hundred years or so and they never have come to an agreement to this day.
I have been looking extensively into both sides of the argument and according to the Scriptures both, the Calvinists and the Arminians are correct.
The debate of predestination is centralised in the doctrine of salvation.
The Calvinists say that a man is saved by GRACE alone apart from works and that salvation is only for the elect.
The Arminians say that a man is saved IN Christ by grace. But to get in Christ he needs to do something, which is called 'works'.
The Calvinists oppose that idea, and the Arminians oppose the idea that the non-elect has no chance to be saved.
A dilemma which can't be solved by either system of theology.
It needs a new revelation of salvation which is intelligent and Scripturally sound and includes both sides of systems.
A salvation which is by Grace alone (Eph. 2:8), which is the new birth and another salvation which is by works (Luke 18:42), which is saved from natural things.
Hi Paul,
DeleteI have no idea what you mean by 'salvation from natural things by works'. I must say that, as I think Scripture and nature teaches determinism, I believe that ANY 'salvation' is (by definition) from grace alone. If works are involved, they are there because God Himself wrought them within us. This is what the concept of 'heavenly reward' is about - work hard, because God is at work within you to fulfil His good purpose, and because great will be your reward in heaven. Anyway, keen to hear and discuss more...
BTW, have you read the view I present in the previous posts in this series? It also attempts a synthesis of 'Free Will' (modified a little, and so called 'Free Agency') and complete determinism. Keen to hear your thoughts. Obviously I will discuss this more as I continue the series...
DeleteHi good people...
ReplyDeleteI mentioned in another thread that we should bring the discussion around to election - looks like its here now. I studied the whole subject quite a bit a couple of years ago and should probably go back to my notes... but I will throw in a quick overview of the conclusion I came to that to me fits with the historical jewish perspective that No Doubt alludes to above. I reiterate that as I get older I see more strongly both the sovereignty of God but also my own personal responsibility and the (horrible) possibility for autonomy of humanity - but within God-set limits. I love the quote above: "All is in the power of God, except the fear of God" (Ber. 33b; Niddah 16b).
Back to my conclusion - which was basically that election is rooted in God choosing a people for himself to show his glory - firstly the family of Abraham then the fullness of the Jew/Gentile new people of God in Christ. In that sense (only?) we are the elect - chosen to be the light to the nations. I'm convinced that the concept is used in a collective sense both in OT and NT terms for the chosen and elect people of God rather than in an individual salvation sense.
In NT terms, when we identify with Christ through the witness of believers and the work of the Spirit we become part of the elect people of God - then we know that God is completely committed to bringing us into the fulness of all he has called us to be in Christ. I believe there is also a sense in which God calls and predestines everyone to good works - but just as not all Israel walked in the calling she was elected to, so not all people obviously walk in the completeness of what God has called then to. Sometimes (always?) God uses people to further his purposes regardless of their own stubbornness or cooperation. As he did with Israel, Pharaoh, Judas et al.
I know there are scriptures that appear to indicate personal election for salvation, but I believe these may all be understood through a different lens that works with my understanding as outlined above. Happy to discuss these - I might have to go back to my notes though.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding what is being discussed here - as usual so much to cover and so little time. I would love to get into God's testing/trials some time as I think that has relevance here too.
Clive
Clive:
ReplyDeleteI agree that election is MAINLY about intending a collective group of people to fulfil a certain purpose, and working to generally accomplish this as a group. I think this is important and would love to hear more of your ideas around this!
But - such an interpretation by no means precludes additional (?minor) meanings for election! In fact, there are several verses implying a more individualised election to each stage of salvation.
But the discussion of determinism is much broader than election alone. There are 'non-election' verses concerning the sovereignty of God and the power of individual man, and verses teaching that God is in absolute intimate control over our wills and holiness. There are verses about the Holy Spirit and the stages of salvation which, although affirming the necessity of our wills (as one stage in the process), also affirm God's control over it. Then there is secular evidence concerning marketing and placebo effect and psychology and upbringing, etc, which indicate very clearly that we have far far less control over our wills and desires (and even 'faith') than we like to admit. There are philosophical arguments that make alternative positions implausible or unjust from God's perspective, or that attempting to preserve independent free will outside God's influence IN FACT destroys the very basis of any responsibility whatsoever. The conclusion of determinism is much broader than simply a discussion on 'election', but election does fit very nicely with it.
Determinism also makes the most plain sense out of the Bible (in my opinion) - accepting what is said about sovereignty and free will, as both being true in as plain a sense as possible. I every single discussion I've read / participated in, ultimately the reasons people don't accept determinism is that they don't LIKE the idea (for various reasons), and so try hard to find plausible ways to reject it. Usually this involves trying to scripturally justify the idea that free will is outside God's sovereignty in some (possibly limited) sense - but I have yet to find an argument that shows this from scripture. Free will, yes. Free will outside God's sovereignty, not so much. By far the strongest arguments I have heard are those that throw around general concepts of God's nature - i.e. 'justice' and 'love'. But even these hinge on humanistic definitions of these concepts, which in Scripture are actually highly interpretable (deliberately, I think), but IF ANYTHING the scriptures teach deterministic and God-focussed definitions for these concepts. Besides, I can easily argue that NON-determinism violates these concepts just as much.
That being said, I am also passionate about defending Free Agency. God has limited himself, but more like a potter who has limited himself to a certain pattern of vase and is doing whatever is required to make it. For the perfect potter (God), the clay is never outside His control, there is no aspect to the clay which He did not Himself create, and it always does exactly as He wants it to at all times - but what He wants it to do involves a process because He has created certain properties in the clay (Free Agency) that He wants to preserve, and is thus required to work with. We go through life because God want to mould us into vessels of honour or dishonour, yet preserve Free Agency because this brings Him more glory and allows real love to exist.
Well said Josh. Personally I think that "free will", needs to be avoided altogether when talking about determinism. It is misleading to what most people think it means and creates confusion. Let "libertarian" free will have their definition and instead we should adopt "free agency" :)
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea about election Clive. It would be good to hear more about it, although I agree with Josh in that the Bible includes many election type concepts that apply at an individual level as well as at a group level.
Paul "A dilemma which can't be solved by either system of theology.
It needs a new revelation of salvation which is intelligent and Scripturally sound and includes both sides of systems."
We need not embrace paradoxy on this topic! A deterministic idea of the universal reconciliation of all things in Christ ties the desires of both camps together rather well. Arminianist ideas of the judicial responsibility of each individual that ends in the ultimate desires of the individual and the Calvinist ideas of the unlimited sovereignty of God over our outcomes, can be reconciled. An idea of universal reconciliation states that we as individuals truly follow where we "want" to go but is subject to God's truly sovereign will that determines who we are to become. It truly enables a belief that we truly are in the image of God, and it avoids the mucky and distasteful problems of Calvinism where God predestines some people to eternal conscious torment and others to eternal conscious bliss in heaven, for no apparent judicial distinction between the people on their account.
Also the concept of salvation by works and by faith are coherent together. I think Christians get hung over the idea that salvation is a line we cross or an instant decision we make, but more so it is a process of becoming like Christ and it is His blood that enables us to do so.
There are lots of things in the bIble that states we need to be saved... baptism, faith, calling on the name of the Lord, receiving the Spirit etc. All these cannot be completed at once but are milestones along the road to becoming like Christ. Christianity is about the "Way" to God and that is a process enabled and orchestrated by and through Christ, so it is He who intends the outcome.
You notice that "salvation" is related to "salvage". Christ's work is to salvage us from our wreckage lol.
So in one sense I am saved because I trust and God trusts His own sovereign intentions for me, but it is a process by which God works in us towards an end.
cheers :)
Clive or anyone;
ReplyDeleteConcerning election; to save a lot of time and discussion, I would like to ask you the main question.
On what basis or reason did the Lord Jesus create and elect some for salvation and rejected others and still be just?
If a man is saved by grace alone and not by what he does or wills (works), why then is another man rejected from that grace to be saved?
In other words what is the reason for one to be saved and the other to be rejected?
Daniel, I'm not referring to God predestines some people for eternal conscious torment and others to eternal conscious bliss in heaven, but rather for a salvation to eternal life and the others for eternal state of death (absence of life).
Quick answers...
Delete1/ On what basis or reason did the Lord Jesus create and elect some for salvation and rejected others and still be just? I don't believe he did - as I said above I believe election and pre-destination are speaking about calling not eternal salvation. I believe that this can be demonstrated scripturally and I hope to come back to specific examples at some stage...
2/ "If a man is saved by grace alone and not by what he does or wills (works), why then is another man rejected from that grace to be saved?
In other words what is the reason for one to be saved and the other to be rejected?" Grace is offered to all, but for various reasons not all accept the offer (in fact it is a command) to respond to the gospel or are in fact presented with the gospel at the same level of compulsion as others (not all have an experience like the apostle Paul did) - it seems that God for his own reasons allows hearts to be hardened for his own purposes - to fulfil a calling that perhaps could be described as "vessels unto dishonour". But I think (and trying to be brief here so oversimplifying) that our concept of "salvation" narrowed to where we go at death is not often what the scriptures are referring to when they use the word. Certainly the OT was very light on the concept of eternal destiny and very focussed on salvation in the present time. The NT assumes this - the Greek word "sozo" is sometimes translated "saved:, sometimes "healed" etc... I think we totally misread the Bible when we see everything in terms of heaven/hell, saved/unsaved dichotomies. I tend to just say that God is just and he is good, he has purposes for this world and he is ultimately the potter, and leave people's eternal destinies in his gracious hands.
I tend to agree with your statement about "a salvation to eternal life and the others for eternal state of death (absence of life)" as I think this fits the metaphor of God being a consuming fire - he consumes all in us that is not born of Christ - and at the end as has been pointed out all things are summed up in Christ in the heavens and on the earth. I do however know from personal testimony (my wife) the horrors of seeing death apart from Christ - she experienced sinking into a pit and seeing tormented faces and cried out to the "real God" and he lifted her out (she was in a cult at the time). I suspect that this was a "sheol" experience rather than a "gehenna" one... but that is another discussion.
Jesus could have elected people based on their nature, but by no "merit" of their own works. Everyone is uniquely made by God and everyone requires a different road to becoming like Christ. For some that road is longer and others, that road is shorter.
ReplyDeleteFirst part of Romans 11 seems to suggest that the elect are not the only ones who will get saved. Paul covers about how the non-elect stumble and the elect do not, but he reiterates that they will not fall because there is a purpose in their stumbling. I believe the elect are those saved within this age...
To me this concept is just. God is respecting each person's nature and yet moulding us into unique peoples, reflecting Christ's image, where ultimately we will be at our full potential. The Bible talks about how each person is capable of coming to Christ, that is, potential to finding the most pleasure available. If God refuses to lead people to Himself who are capable of finding most pleasure in Him, then I struggle to see that as a just act by God... by His standards.
Paul, I know that you may not have been referring to those specific beliefs, but those beliefs are a key to the distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism (except for maybe Annihilationism).
If God truly made man in His image, how then is it possible for them to enter an eternal state of death, whatever that may mean?
Isn't God a God of life through death? Oh death WHERE is your sting?
Daniel, You are spot on with your question, "If God truly made man in His image, how then is it possible for them to enter an eternal state of death, whatever that may mean?"
ReplyDeleteThat question has troubled me for many years, then I inquired of the Lord and He lead me to see and understand the fall of man in Genesis.
If we can clearly understand that, we will see and understand the election of God from the beginning in Genesis right through to Revelation.
I will give a rough outline on the plan of God and the fall of man and the new birth and reason for election.
Because the Lord had created Adam in His image perfect, therefore He had to have a plan to make His perfect creation (man) imperfect.
So He created one of the beasts of the field different than all other beasts. That beast was the only beast who was designed by the Lord to defile God's perfect creation 'man' (Adam) who was in His image.
The Lord gave the serpent the power to defile the image of God which is man (Adam) by introducing into His perfect image another image, the image of the beast. This is called the fall of man.
From then on we had two images, the image of God and the image of the beast in God's creation of man with now two natures.
From there on were two lines of man, the good and the evil line stated in Genesis.
The good line were (God) Adams children and the evil line were the serpents children through Cain, and both lines were born through the mother of all living 'Eve'.
Two lines of children, God's children and Satan's children.
God's children whom He loves, called the elect, who have died in Adams sin, were chosen and predestined to become saved, as in born again unto eternal life.
Satan's children who were hated by God and born spiritually dead , they were rejected and predestined to stay spiritually dead eternal.
This two group of people were always at enmity with one and another starting with Cain killing his half brother Abel to this very day.
Two groups of people and two salvation, one is by grace unto life, only for the elect, the other salvation is from punishment, disaster, sickness and disease etc. for everyone (both groups) who believes or have faith etc. and that is by works.
Here we can see in a basic outline that election has started at the beginning by God to justly redeem all His children and justly rejecting all Satan's children, to lay down His life for His sheep (children) and not for Satan's children (wolves or goats).
If the Calvinists and the Aminianist would have understood that, they would never have denounced each others doctrines.
Except that the blessings are for both groups, in fact for everyone who believes and who is obedient to the Lord.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteYes. I am talking about TULIP, especially Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement which are not Scriptural and is a new concept when compared to what the Jews believe and what the church was founded upon. As for the falseness of a doctrine, I take my lead from God. If one part of a doctrine is false, then all needs to be thrown out. Once the false parts are corrected, the whole doctrine can be re-evaluated. Don't be mad at me, be mad at God, it is his directive, not mine.
"Well brother, I'm guilty of that, I think that we all have to argue from our perspective whether right or wrong and the Scriptures and the Spirit of the Lord is our judge. If I or we are convicted to be against the Word of God we will certainly repent of our view and adjust to the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are the authority over me and every believer in Jesus Christ."
However, when I show you time after time that the modern day interpretations of the Scriptures are full of error driven by the interpreters own agenda, you ridicule me, saying that the English is the real version.
As for all doctrines counter to what Y'shua taught us from the beginning are and will be publicly rejected by God at the Judgement Throne. As you and I have discussed, just because a doctrine is false, it doesn't necessary cause any issues with our salvation. I am willing to bet that every True Believer has followed a false doctrine at one time or another. That is why Y'shua came to die on the altar of God, to cover our sinful missteps.
Hi Joshua,
ReplyDelete"Also, there are serious implications to labelling another person’s doctrine as ‘false’ - including risking unity, love, fellowship, witness to the world, pride and humility, etc. Obviously these may not happen (especially if all is done in a Christ-like attitude), but they are all risks. Only sometimes will these risks be worth it, and often they are NOT worth it simply because our flawed perception of truth doesn’t quite align with another person’s.
My friend, First of all, I am not upset that you are basically accusing me of causing disunity in the church. Secondly, I totally reject that and the premise of not pointing out the false teachings. Unity, as taught in the scriptures, is unity under the true doctrine of Y'shua.
If we follow the scriptures, especially the lesson taught to us by Paul in Acts 17:11, then we deliver what we believe, receive all teachings with all eagerness of heart, then allow the Spirit of God to teach us the through the Scriptures. Notice that that biblical example was void of Great contemporary teachers, seminaries, other books, etc.
I honestly believe that no one would have come up with Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement without Calvin publicly proclaiming it. As I commented earlier, it goes against the nature of God.
I know that hurts yours and others feelings. But, I would not be a true servant of God, if I didn't point it out. We would not be true Brothers to each other if we didn't point out where each other was going astray.
Here's a tough love statement. If you don't want to hear it from the bottom of my heart and love for all my Brothers and Sisters in the Messiah, then stop reading and skip to the next paragraph. You and others being offended says more about your maturity level than anything else, especially since I have given you no other to suspect my intentions. Did Peter get his feelings hurt when Y'shua said, "Get behind me Satan"? Did the counsel at Jerusalem get their feelings hurt when Paul told them that they were wrong? No. Both took the message, evaluated it and relied on the Spirit to guide them.
I tell you what. Let's stop a minute and back up.
Let me ask you two straightforward questions and please give me two straight forward answers. I honestly believe this would clear the air.
What was God's purpose for Y'shua coming here and being crucified on the cross?
Did he accomplish this purpose?
I await your answers.
Wow. Lots to read and think about!
DeleteLet me first emphasis my vision for this site and ALL forums where Christians discuss doctrine. The fundamental drive of my life is not to have correct doctrine. It is to enjoy God in His fullness. The purpose of pursuing doctrine is fundamentally submissive to this drive of enjoying God. Intellectual facts (doctrine) about God enable me to enjoy Him more! But doctrine is by no means the be-all and end-all of 'knowing' God (or even Truth). And even 'knowing God' is not the be-all and end-all of enjoying Him. I could know Him inside out and yet work with all my strength to malign Him in the eyes of the world. This is the OPPOSITE of what I need to do to enjoy Him! I want the world to see that I enjoy Him! And to want to enjoy Him with me!
Therefore, in my pursuit of true doctrine, I MUST also work to enjoy God in non-doctrinal ways, and I MUST also work to help others enjoy God in all ways possible. I want people to see our discussions here and to TASTE our shared enjoyment of God DESPITE our differences, and to get excited about pursuing Him in the same way as us. Unfortunately, I feel we have lost our way in this discussion a little. An outsider reading this discussion as it stands will be lucky to taste our shared enjoyment of God.
No doubt:
I've got much thicker skin than you give me credit for! I was not accusing you of anything (unlike your posts towards us) other than taking risks. You're a responsible Spirit-filled Christian and I trust God to help you make the right decision. I was merely trying to be helpful in this regard. I sincerely wanted you to avoid saying something that caused damage which you'd regret later, especially standing before God at the end. I consider your many accusations to be very strong and thus risky. Are you certain it's worth it?
Our disagreement is not really about election (though we certainly disagree here!) It is about our approach toward truth and unity. I feel that you have confused doctrinal differences to a fundamental difference of spirit (which I don't believe exists) - and more than that, to a difference fundamental enough that its worth risking offence over. I don't think it is.
I hope to continue pursuing truth with you in an attitude of love and humility. But for this to occur I need you to attempt to persuade me with Scripture, and not with emotional statements of little substance. I am open to you convincing me from scripture, that you are more on track than me in our views of which behaviours are consistent with God's nature. But I'm still waiting...
Here's my take on why Christ came. Romans 3:25-26 teaches that Christ's death was a demonstration TO PROVE GODS RIGHTEOUSNESS, because He had been passing over sins. Think about it - if God passes over sins, it places question marks over his justice and righteousness and worthiness of worship. Doesn't He care about sin? Or can't He do anything about it? Or is sin not really that destructive to the universe?
DeleteSo yes, Jesus perfectly fulfills His purpose of demonstrating God's righteousness - sin IS horrible and God DOES care and He IS just, even though He passes over sins. In an indirect way, it proves the depths of God's love - by demonstrating that His love is not a flippant 'easy path', it is a deliberate decision that questions His justice, which is intense (apparently). But it must be worth it. God's justice is so intense it took the death of His son to prove the horribleness of sin, but His love is great enough that He would demonstrate it anyway.
limited atonement is not something many people argue with these days. It merely state that SOME people will be atoned for and ultimately saved from hell, while those persisting in sin do NOT obtain the benefit of atonement. I'm pretty sure you don't deny this, but correct me if I'm wrong.
DeleteOf course, when interpreted in the light of the other points it can lead to some harsh conclusions (which I think are unnecessary, but an understandable and concerning risk). For example, some conclude that God doesn't love the non-elect, or that the Gospel shouldn't be offered to them, or that the cross has no benefit for them. But it is the other points of Calvinism you need to bring down, or if not then show how the harsh conclusions mentioned here are not necessary. Because I don't think you can argue with Limited Atonement.
Unconditional Election is much easier to argue with - but I still think its true ;)
Clive,
ReplyDeleteBrother, I think you hit the nail on the head. The only way that Election, as we have been discussing, can be shoehorned into the scriptures is, as you said, as attributing to calling. The scriptures do not support the way it's taught in Calvinism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoshua,
ReplyDelete"I agree that election is MAINLY about intending a collective group of people to fulfil a certain purpose, and working to generally accomplish this as a group. I think this is important and would love to hear more of your ideas around this!"
Why didn't you say this first? This is exactly how it works. We could have totally foregone this whole adverse discussion, if you had said this in the first place.
Predestination or Election of an individual is like a fisherman dangling his hooked worm and saying, "Here little fishy. I here to deliver you." However, when the fish attempts to grab a hold of it, the fisherman pulls it away and then says, "Not you fish, I meant another one." Honestly, does that sound like God?
Hi ND,
ReplyDeleteThis discussion has got a little heated (it seems) on the topic of unity. I by no means think that it is necessary. Reading written texts can distort someone's tone quite easily. I know Josh quite well and he means for the best, just as I understand you do to ND. There is a place for being direct and even challenging, but as long as it is done in love, hence the name of the blog "Benevolent Hecklers".
"Unity, as taught in the scriptures, is unity under the true doctrine of Y'shua."
ND, I would have to challenge this concept. If we all had the same doctrine and the same way of thought, then what did Paul mean by Colossians 3:14? "Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity."
And as Jesus said "34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”"
Two important ideas we need to consider in regards to doctrine and unity is that:
1. If God wanted us to all have the same doctrine then He would have decreed it, if He is soverign. If God wanted us to all have the same doctrine then why do the whole populace of Christendom do not have access to Bibles by which they can form "perfect" doctrine. Can they not have unity where there is no Bible?.
2. We draw subjective readings from the Bible. As per Acts 17:11, this is what Calvinists, Arminianist etc do and hence why they disagree. They examine the scriptures to decipher it, to understand it, to comprehend it. We all draw different conclusions regarding it according to our growth in Christ. Both positions have valid arguments and I agree with Paul that a new creative way needs to be thought if by which one can reconcile the differences/truths of both sides.
"The only way that Election, as we have been discussing, can be shoehorned into the scriptures is, as you said, as attributing to calling. The scriptures do not support the way it's taught in Calvinism."
I do not believe it is that simple. The calling of God and the election of God is contrasted in the Bible. Jesus said that many are called and few are chosen, they are not entirely synonymous. Is the call of God really that ineffective?
Here are a couple of questions regarding election for further discussion:
Do people become the elect before or after they accept Christ? In other words can the "elect" receive the grace of God (as Romans 11 suggests) or does the grace of God cause them to be "elect"?
Romans 11:
"Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.[c] But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:
“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”[d]
9 And David says:
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”[e]
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHey Daniel,
DeleteIndeed, it's been a little heated but honestly, Joshua has been a little sensitive to my bluntness at times. No harm done. As a matter of fact, my wife has read this and indicated that he probably isn't used to the bluntness of Americans. Possibly, no harm here.
As for the written text, early on in this comment section, I wrote:
"First of all, regardless of how it comes across, you can be assured that I have nothing but love and respect for your and all believers in the Messiah. I even have respect SOMETIMES for others. :-) LOL Therefore, let's not talk of offending each other again because it typically doesn't happen with me. With that said, let's agree that if something offends or angers, then we will let each other know, otherwise, no offense. Agreed?"
I guess he didn't accept that agreement. Oh well.
As for Collossians 3:14, it doesn't say anything about unity in the original Greek. It says Agape completes you. However, Paul does say that we need to be perfectly united in mind and knowledge in 1 Cor 1:10. You can substitute knowledge with doctrine.
As for God decreeing it, if it in his Word, then it is decreed.
Acts 17:11 basically states that the resolution between what is being said and the truth can be found within the scriptures. There are no shades of gray in Gods Word, only black and white, therefore one doctrine. I cannot accept God allowing different interpretations when his resolution to false prophets was and is death. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Got to go, but I be back for the election part as soon as I get home.
No doubt - I hope I can clear up some misunderstandings. Although I accept your word that you weren't offended with me, it certainly seemed otherwise as you threw more and more wild accusations around. I'm sure you'd be happy not to have these broadcast again (at least not without more carefully crafting your words and supporting your claims, as you should have at first). I was not responding with offence at all, but with a genuine concern for your future regret. Did my cautioning you get misinterpreted as offence? This surprises me, since by American standards my response is mild LOL!
DeleteI have many American colleagues and friends, so I am familiar with your culture of bluntness and passion, which has many virtues! But the one big weakness that the rest of the world sees in American Christianity, is the inappropriate placement of passion on matters of minor importance, causing division and obscuring the matters of major importance. I'm used to it, but I still think its a definite weakness - its not a matter of mis-interpreted bluntness, its a matter of unbalanced passion. I'm only pointing this out in the hopes that you won't ignore my earlier cautioning, NOT because I think American culture should change! Please continue with your bluntness and passion because in appropriate settings it is refreshing and useful!
Joshua,
DeleteIt amazes me of how you have responded toward my "wild accusations". How much anger and resentment you obviously continue to hold inside. I hope and pray that you are able to let it go.
As for my comments, no regrets. As for your "cautioning", I appreciate it. After that, we should respond according to our convictions regardless of your perception of my possible "future regret". In the vernacular of the California Surfers, let it go dude. You're going to give yourself a heat attack.
As for your perception of my"inappropriate placement of passion", it's my passion. As for me causing division, if it turns out that you are wrong in your beliefs, wouldn't you want me to tell you that you are wrong now instead of you hanging your head at the judgement seat of God? I would... if the tables were turned.
That appears to be the main difference between you and me and I freely admit it. I have passion for my God and his Word and I am sure of what it says. I'll will reiterate to you what I just told Daniel. God's Word is absolute. It is black and white with no shades of gray.
I have passion for you. I agape you and am concern for your witness. I am committed to your edification. If I say that the Gentiles did this or the Jews did that, or the Calvanists did this or the Essenes did that, it is not out of arrogance but love, agape love.You falsely accuse me inappropriate placement of passion. Again, I will gladly stand before God because I stand assuredly on his Word.
You say that I cause division. Well my friend, I have good company. Y'shua, that same Word on which I stand, said that he came to do the same thing. If it causes division by me trying to show you that your are wrong, so be it. Again, no regrets. Instead of constantly trying to feign a false air of concern for me when your words show contempt, why don't you let finish my conversation with Daniel and maybe you may learn something about my point of view, which is not American but Middle Eastern.
By the way, one thing I did notice that we both have done in this comment section is leave out God's Word. Daniel brought it to my attention. Thank You Daniel. We both have been guilty of expressing ourselves without substantiating it with scripture. Even your original post is void of scripture.
Let's both agree to get off our perceived high horse and accept the message with all eagerness of heart, but search the scriptures for ourselves with the help of only the God's Holy Spirit to whether the message if true. Acts 17:11
Daniel,
Delete"We draw subjective readings from the Bible."
Honestly, I didn't know that about Calvinists. It explains a lot of things. I'm sorry but I can't go there. God's Word does not lend itself to swaying back and forth as the waves of the sea, that is, if I understood your meaning correctly. I believe God has revealed his absolute truth. It has it's baseline in the Torah. Everything in the B'rit Hadashah has it's root and can be defined in the Torah or Tanakh. I believe that is what is alluded to in Hebrews 13:8. The Word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
As for the election issue, let me start off with a few Messianic Jewish beliefs that has roots in Judaism and is the only branch of Christianity that has an unbroken genealogy to the first century church. Bear with me as I will try my best to tie it together. This is what I was trying to get to with Joshua.
1.Purpose of the Cross.
God's character being revealed from the cross is one of many results of the cross, not the purpose. The purpose of the Torah and the Cross is for all men to be reconciled to God. God desires for all men to be reconciled to him, not a preselected few.
”For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ” John 3:16
”For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ” Titus 2:11
”For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” 1 Tim. 2:3-4
”The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” 2 Pet. 3:9
2. Full Counsel of God
One must take in the Full Counsel of God when settling on his beliefs. In the Torah, it says, ” A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Deut 19:14 By two witnesses or more is a truth established. This means that at least two witnesses, or in this venue, verses, is a truth established. Paul reiterates this in 2 Cor. 13:1.
We are also told that if two additional verses appear to say something different, then the four verses need to be reconciled. If this truth goes against the nature of God, then a truth must be reevaluated. This establishes Truth by the Full Counsel of God.
Witness #1 Roman 11
At first glance, you can misconstrue this verse to mean that God chose an individual or individuals before the beginning of time for a particular purpose. However, in context, this doesn't pan out.
If you read the verses prior to this one, you will find that God chose the individuals that chose not to bend their knees before Ba'al, to do his work.
In Context, you read this verse as God chose you and me because we chose not to bend our knees to sin, but follow God through Y'shua.
Witness #2 John 13:18
This is clearly showing that, of the twelve sitting there, Y'shua chose eleven for a particular purpose which pans out as spreading the gospel. The "not all" meant that he was speaking particularly to or about the twelfth, Judas. This has absolutely nothing to do with the predestination or the election of those to be saved.
It is presently midnight and I have to get up and out the door by 5am. I promise that I will finish.
Shalom
Hi Keith,
DeleteI am sorry, but have to differ with you on the black and whiteness of scripture. Due to factors of personal upbringing which influences the coloured glasses by which we read scripture, the lack of knowledge of the cultural background of the writers of scripture and the English translations of scripture so widely populated in the world today, it would be a far cry to claim that scripture is black and white it its delivery of God's Word to us. If God did not intend for this to be so He would not have allowed it, but he has and by result of such we have differing denominations. You are right in needing to reconcile the whole counsel of God and there are (as you said) verses that contradict each other. Hence is evidence that things are not black and white.
The context of Romans 11 actually says that "God reserved" them for Himself, not the elect reserved themselves for God. Also God chose them not on the basis of their "works" (bowing the knee) but on the basis of grace. My main point was that the non-elect can be saved. Ephesians 1 is quite clear that the elect was chosen well before they even existed and were predetermined/predestined for salvation which is more than "hoping" for the elect's salvation.
Interesting also to consider what Jesus meant when He said many are called but few are chosen. Is God's calling not strong enough or convincing enough?
I love the verses you give in regard to the salvation of all people.
They for me are evidence of God's plan to reconcile all things (everyone) to Himself.
Cheers.
P.S. Also the purpose of Josh's series is to create a Biblical systematic theology from a coherent philosophical perspective. He encourages scriptural and philosophical inconsistencies to be pointed out. But he would like explanations of the inconsistencies rather than assertions that they are incorrect :)
Daniel,
DeleteDo you think that God would want us to look at the Scriptures through the colored glasses of our traditional bias and upbringing or through the tools that he us such as the original text and of course his Holy Spirit? John 16:13, 'Acts 17:11.
As for Romans 11, the "ending of knee "refers to faith not works, which brings us back to the free will of the individual.
As for Joshua theological intent of his post, I will not comment as it is void of scriptural support.
Daniel,
DeleteI just responded to Paul and said what I want to convey to you. You should know me by now. I am always open to scriptural debate. Can you help reconcile my dilemma?
If you haven't read it, here is what I wrote in response to Paul concerning the same thing.
So far, we have a God that wants to reconcile mankind to himself. He has shown us that we cannot go it alone and is willing to sacrifice himself in order for mankind to come home. He is even sending out an open invitation to everyone to take him up on the offer.
Now, let's throw the concept of election based on an individual’s salvation alone into the mix. The concept that says only those who were chosen before the beginning of time will be saved. Now the invitation reads:
”For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened, as long as you were chosen before the beginning of time.”
Now, I have tried my best both in the past and the last few days to look at the election of an individual based on salvation alone and try to fit it into the nature of God that is supported by Scripture, but I cannot. I have tried so hard because Daniel and Joshua and others are so adamant about it. However, I still come to the same conclusion.
You cannot have the true purpose of Torah and the Cross, which is all mankind to be saved, the open invitation to everyone and the election of an individual based on their salvation alone without adding capricious, hypocrisy and unreliability to the nature of God. It just doesn’t work.
Your friend and brother in the Messiah
Hi again ND - I don't think the Bible or experience (let alone God's instructions about persuing unity) supports a 'black and white' interpretation of Scripture. Whatever messages God wants to express in His word are definitely discoverable by His Spirit. But there are messages that He does NOT intend from His word, which leaves us with pillars of truth we struggle to connect together. God wants us to hold fast to the pillars (e.g. His justice, His love, Christ's divinity) but may not want us to have the details. It is in these areas that we can speculate but ultimately no one can be black and white because GOD is not black and white in Scripture. A lot of 'dividing' doctrines in church are actually man's interpretations of the gaps between Christ's teachings (e.g. determinism or non-determinism). Such speculated differences should not destroy unity - if all still love Christ and the pillars of revelation about God that He DOES make clear.
DeleteEven in the messages God intends to be black and white, we rely on His Spirit for perfect interpretation. God wants this (but clearly there are other desires that trump this, because we do not have it yet), but also desires us to love and be united with our brethren and to have humility on the basis of the realities of imperfect holiness and imperfect interpretation of Scripture. Unfortunately, NO SINGLE PERSON on earth has been 100% submitted to the Spirit, therefore ALL of our interpretations are flawed somewhere, and we won't know where (unless God reveals it). This is why salvation and faith and sanctification and unity are based on the desires and attitudes of our heart (love for Christ, etc) rather than doctrine. The activity of the Holy Spirit is much more focussed on these things than on doctrine. I believe doctrine is important, but for other reasons.
Regarding Christ coming to cause division - He talked of being a cause for division between His people and the world, not between His people themselves. Also, it wasn't His 'doctrine', but His person that would cause this division. People hated Him or loved Him. Yes, His doctrine was part of that, but definitely not all of it.
The translation of Col 3:14 is about love (agape) tying everything into completeness - but both the words used for 'tying' and for 'completeness' have connotations of unity and harmony. Also the context is how church is a body of people where differences require forgiveness and humility and compassion and patience, and Paul's point is that love is the most important factor in their unity.
DeleteThe wording used in 1 Cor 1:10 is to have the same 'mind' and 'judgement'. Other Biblical passages demonstrate that 'mind' refers to attitudes, desires, postures. 1 Co 2:16 makes most sense if this is the case. 2 Co 3:14 only makes sense this way. Phil 2:5 makes this most clear (showing us what Christ's 'mind' was). 'Judgement' refers to your aims and resolve and is intrinsically linked to this concept of mind (doesn't really fit well with a doctrine definition of mind unless you add desires onto it). Again the context is an appeal for unity and love and humility in the midst of divisions arising over minor differences in teachers (which presumably included differences in doctrine, or at least in emphasis of doctrines). What He is asking is for us to look at the commonality in spirit and heart (demonstrating common regeneration, since they are wrought by the Holy Spirit), to all attempt to posture ourselves like Christ, and as a result to have the same resolve (which, He contends, should include a resolve for unity and love in the face of doctrinal differences).
As with other passages in scripture - the biblical concept of knowledge often includes familiar experience, and the highest definition of truth is in fact the concrete revelation of Christ. Although I think this includes head knowledge and 'doctrine', I think this is merely one facet to something much bigger. In the context of 1Ti 2:3-4 I think Paul is wanting everyone to come to love Christ, not have same doctrine.
I don't know what you were meaning about an unbroken genealogy to the early church, though I'm keen to know what you mean since church history is a keen interest of mine. With all of God's Scriptures, most believers will have aspects of misinterpretation of its very intentions and its details (myself included). This was true in Paul's time too (look at Corinth). So while Jewish tradition and early church culture is important, neither should not inform our opinion of how God wants us to interpret Scripture. Instead Christ should. The 'Torah' is not the same as Jewishness since the Jews get this wrong just as much as the Gentiles (both early and late church). I'm not saying to ignore the Torah, but to USE it without cultural biases to find what christ wants. Obviously this is not entirely possible (i have my own biases and they're not easy to combat or even detect!), but a worthwhile aim.
DeleteI believe we should have passion for Christ, and not mainly for his written word. Its a subtle difference - like the difference between faith in Christ or faith in our faith. Or the difference between worshiping Christ or worshiping the emotional experience of a worship service. Obviously none of these three things are bad, but they are all subservient to Christ - passion for His word in this way is good, but it opens you up to prioritising appropriately. Let me explain why I believe the Torah is subjective to Christ. I hope to expand further on this in a future article, which I'm still working on!
All of redemptive history has been a progressive revelation of God, ultimately working towards a culmination in Christ in heaven. Adam, Noah, Abraham all existed prior to Moses. All had progressive insight into Christ, but not enough know Him personally. Yet the Holy Spirit worked in their hearts to LOVE Christ with what they did know, and this faith worked itself out in obedience to God's values as He had currently revealed them. Moses was another step in this revelation - and the Law had the same purpose as all Gods previous and subsequent revelations, to demonstrate more aspects of Christ, for people to love, and to respond out of faith in obedience to the values He had currently expressed. Each step has added to the previous (not removed it), but has still resulted in changed methods of valuing God, because the total picture has still changed. With Moses God demonstrated more clearly His plan for a nation to represent Him in the world (this would be paused for a period later in history, i.e. now), and the faith response was to be obedience to the revealed Law (though even this was flexible under the more foundational rule of faith and love for God's values, as David demonstrated with the Shew bred and Jesus elaborated on).
DeleteChrist came and revealed Himself further (although we still only know in part, as Paul states, and await the future full revelation of Christ in heaven). This revelation added to existing revelations and did NOT negate them, but it still changed the way we respond in faith because the total picture has changed. Christ introduced new values and a new phase of God's plan - one of multi-ethnic missional urgency, where the Jews were being provoked to Jealousy, and where many of the laws would not be followable. He also demonstrated that some laws had ceremonial significance in mimicking Him, and were no longer required. Finally He began the new testament trend of summarising the law in a set of attitudes which were of ultimate importance (not obedience to the letter), and elevating these attitudes to levels impossible to attain without the Holy Spirit.
The Apostles expand on this revelation further, teaching that the Law's main purpose was to reveal, encourage, and lock people under sin - and then to lead them to Christ. It could not justify, and it could not sanctify. If you wanted justification, look to Christ. And if you wanted holiness, DON'T look to the law, look to Christ! They further summarised the law into a set of attitudes, and demonstrated how these Holy-Spirit wrought attitudes could play themselves out in a variety of flexible ways depending on the context - unlike in the mono-cultural Jewish phase of God's revelation (Moses). A big part of this was, again, deliberately avoiding a focus on the old testament Law EXCEPT to trap people under sin in preparation for Christ. So the scriptures (as they stand) are the most useful tool God has given us to see Christ, and thus we should measure everything else against them. But the goal is Christ, who is MORE than the scriptures. And I await His full revelation to me in heaven!
"Predestination or Election of an individual is like a fisherman dangling his hooked worm and saying, "Here little fishy. I here to deliver you." However, when the fish attempts to grab a hold of it, the fisherman pulls it away and then says, "Not you fish, I meant another one." Honestly, does that sound like God?"
ReplyDeleteGood point but that refers to Calvinism, not predestination and election.
Actually that thinking about it a bit more, that doesn't really reflect Calvinism properly. God wouldn't jerk the hook away, the non elect would avoid the hook. In Calvinism, God gives faith to whom He wishes and that would be the equivalent to the Fish "wanting" to get on the hook.
ReplyDeleteGreat idea on the two lines of people Paul. (Sorry I only just published your comment, so it got shoved back where you wrote it on the timeline of comments).
ReplyDeleteI wrote a similar post on this topic here a little while age if you are interested. It pretty much asks how is it possible for God's "good" creation to go bad? If it went bad then how was it "good"? http://thebenevolenthecklers.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/what-did-god-mean-by-calling-his.html
Regarding this comment "Satan's children who were hated by God and born spiritually dead , they were rejected and predestined to stay spiritually dead eternal."
I like this idea in a way because it implies that God never "chose" any person over another arbitrarily, but that there were always one type of people that were salvageable and the type were not. So Satan's line of children would in effect be there as an example of God's justice, an example of His anti-evil nature. Satan's children would of course be happier in their state of sin than to be with God, so it is no skin off their nose I guess.
However the main problem I have with this idea, is that God seems to say in His Word that He wants everyone saved, and intends for everyone to be saved, and expects everyone to be saved. Proverbs gives and examples of this by stating that if a child is brought up in the ways of the Lord he will not depart from it. This seems to be saying that if a child really is brought up in the ways of the Lord then he would come to accept Christ. So not only does God "not" accept certain people (I would say for a time) but He actively prevents some people from finding Him when they are able to.
I don't think that Satan's children would be able to accept God if they were pure evil.
Romans 11 once again talks about blind some for a time ( and appears not to be the elect) and I quoted it above. God does it for the benefits of another. Actually, I read Lewis the other day and He had an interesting insight. He claimed that God chose people for the sake of others and not necessarily for the sake of themselves (or something like that). Well, Romans 11 at the end speaks along the lines of that. Paul says there that God committed all to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all.
cheers!
Regarding unity and false doctrines:
ReplyDeleteThis is covered extensively in the last post which I refer you to for details. Essentially Unity is based on love and like-mindedness and spiritual filling - all of which are attitudes in Scripture, not doctrines. I believe doctrines will reflect and enhance (in some way) the desires and enjoyments of the heart - but not in a uniform predictable way. It takes effort and insight to say ANYTHING about the state of the heart based solely on doctrine. There are some big obvious ones - e.g. if you love Christ you will believe in his justice and love (but even these are fuzzy around the edges). But most of the small details say much less about the heart than you'd think. I believe we are still very united in our view of God, and in our heart loves - despite our differences in how God's justice and love and sovereignty play out together.
I'm not against pointing out false doctrine. I'm against pride in assuming you know true doctrine, or assuming you know the risks associated with a doctrine or the impact of your disagreements. Maybe if we were jeapordising Christ's role on earth, or the salvation of all Gentiles, AND if you were as sure of God's direct revelation to you as Jesus and Paul were, it would be worth it. Otherwise I think a lot of humility goes a long way. Those who use doctrinal differences as the ONLY justifiable excuse to fight against unity, and those who assume negative implications of a doctrine without justification, will be ashamed before God on judgement day. Whereas those who let differences of doctrine go (because there were no justifiable adverse consequences or associated problems) for the sake of unity and love, will have nothing to be ashamed of, even if they make mistakes in this way.
Regarding election:
ReplyDeleteI STILL DO believe in election of individuals, since I am a determinist (for multiple reasons). But I agree with those who think election is MAINLY (but not only) about a group.
Please be careful of condescending language when referring to election - you wouldn't want people to agree with you simply because of the subconscious emotional bias your language generates, when in fact truth was on the other person's side :) I could easily quote the 'Arminianism god' and make him sound pathetic - 'please little fishy, grab my hook! No! Oh please don't ignore me! I wish I hadn't made you a random machine...' Obviously that's not how you see things.
Election is not God 'hoping' some would come and denying others who try. That denies the definition! Everyone that god wants to come, does. And no one who comes is rejected.
Clive - You have admitted to not completely understanding how things work with God, but you are still holding fast to His justice, and to man's responsibility. I agree - but then you cannot insist on rejecting another idea that simply states the same thing - many people's view of determinism (including my own) holds fast to God's justice and to man's responsibility, without understanding exactly how everything works. But at least I can see it working a lot more clearly than I think Arminianism allows, and at least there is no unpredictable randomness and God's perfect goodness holds absolute sway over EVERYTHING. I personally find this more comforting than the questions of Arminianism.
You also point out that salvation is bigger than simply heaven and hell. I couldn't agree more! In fact determinism fits perfectly with this broad holistic view of salvation - God is literally working ALL THINGS to be reconciled to Him. Salvation is entirely a work of God right from election, pre-calling, calling, new birth and regeneration and faith, sanctification, death, glorification and reward... its all one big story.
No Doubt;
ReplyDeleteHi Keith, I agree with you on the Unconditional election.
The Calvinists say that our salvation has NO condition attached to it.
The Arminianists say that the condition for our salvation is that we have to be in Christ.
But the problem is, to get into Christ we have to do something, like believe, faith or whatever, which negates 'grace'. Yes, I know that they put another grace there, called 'Preveniant Grace', which I call 'Convenient Grace' :-)
The Arminianists mock the Calvinists and say that God had a hat with all the names of all humans in it, He then randomly picks a name out of the hat and that person then becomes the elect. That accusation is a big problem for the Calvinist.
I think that the Lord Jesus has given us in our time a greater insight into His Word than they had in their time.
Please don't get me wrong, I believe that both John Calvin and Jacob Arminius are mighty men of God with outstanding insight into God's Word and His doctrines in their time.
But today I can see in the Scriptures that election is 'CONDITIONAL', but not as the Arminians teach.
It is on the condition that they were in Christ before the foundation of the world. In other words, they were the children of God through the line of God, Adam, Seth and so on, with Adam's DNA, and not those who are through the line of the serpent Cain, Enoch and Irad etc. with the beasts DNA. I hope that makes sense.
Limited Atonement;
As it is with most doctrines, If we can't see it in Genesis (the beginning), I put a question mark over it.
Again, the Lamb of God was slain before the world began (Rev. 13:8).
The Lord Jesus laid down His life only for the sheep, His children (John 10:11+15), and died to gather His children from abroad (John 11:51-52), those children were His Children through Adam and Seth and He did not die for those children belonging to the serpent through Cain, therefore Limited Atonement stands.
Perhaps, here you can see that the atonement was limited only to' ALL' of God's children in the whole world.
If the Lord Jesus would have shed His blood for both groups of people, then nobody would be guilty of their sins and nobody could be charged of sins committed, because Jesus has cancelled their debt and charges against them on the cross.
But as it is, the righteous will be saved and the wicked will be damned.
You said, "I am willing to bet that every True Believer has followed a false doctrine at one time or another. That is why Jesus came to die on the altar of God, to cover our sinful missteps."
I give you a big AMEN on that!
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Here are a couple of questions regarding election for further discussion:
Do people become the elect before or after they accept Christ? In other words can the "elect" receive the grace of God (as Romans 11 suggests) or does the grace of God cause them to be "elect"?"
No my brother, you need to look from the other way around.
There is not one in the entire world who would ACCEPT Christ, no, not even one. We were ALL haters of God and lovers of pleasures and lovers of self (Rom. 3:11-12) etc.
We were the elect in Christ (in God) before the foundation of the world (Eph.1:4 and 2 Tim. 1:9), we do not become the elect, we always were God's elect, and at the appropriate time He saved us by no merits of our self which is called grace.
It was the Lords plan from the beginning to save His people the elect from the state of death to life eternal, that is only for His children and not for Satan's children.
It was Jesus Christ who has chosen us and accepted us, and not we, Him.
You said, "However the main problem I have with this idea, is that God seems to say in His Word that He wants everyone saved, and intends for everyone to be saved, and expects everyone to be saved."
Yes Daniel, God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).
(Mark 16:16) Those who believe and are baptised will be saved.
(1 Tim. 2;15) Woman shall be saved in childbearing.
(Luke 7:50) Jesus said your faith has saved you.
(Luke 18:42) Jesus said to the blind man, your faith has saved you.
As you can see that all those and many more are saved by WORKS! They are saved by what they do, or believe, or their faith etc. and ALL are natural events like saved from sickness, saved from disaster, saved from drowning, saved from blindness, saved from enemies etc.
But not one of those salvations are the new birth, to be born again by grace, born not by the will of man nor the will of the flesh, but by the will of God alone, which is salvation from a dead state unto life eternal, and only that is by GRACE alone lest any men would boast.
Perhaps you can see that there are two types of salvation, one by works the other by grace alone.
Just like the Aminians, salvation by works and the Calvinists, salvation by grace alone. Both of them did not understand that..
Joshua, you said, "Election is not God 'hoping' some would come and denying others who try. That denies the definition! Everyone that god wants to come, does. And no one who comes is rejected."
Excellent statement, I give you a big AMEN!
I can see you have thought about this a lot and it is very intriguing. But I find it a very bizarre concept, sorry! And I really don't think it solves the problem you are trying to solve.
DeleteFirst of all, the problem between Calvinists and Arminianists is not really regarding there being 'conditions' of election. Calvinists don't say there is no 'condition' to election (i.e. that God is truly random). Rather, there is no condition that God Himself did not create. It is important to Calvinists that the creation of these conditions is itself tied to the higher purposes of God - i.e. not random, but constrained to the expression of His character. And now He works with the necessary results of these constraints, and elects based on the conditions He has created. I explore this idea more fully in my articles - that God has determined a group of diverse characters to display His glory, and that this requires a process of moulding these characters with the end result being some are saved in various ways, while others are rejected in various ways. The 'conditions' formed by his goal, are a group of individualised souls. Foreknowledge of their intricate intimate details (including how they will grow and respond to various influences), and a system perspective attempting to maximise his glory and salvation and reconciliation - THESE are what He bases His election on.
But Arminianists still have a problem with this because their REAL concern is that God deliberately creates some people for Hell and others for Heaven, it doesn't matter WHAT the reason is. So your solution doesn't really solve this conflict at all, unfortunately.
Second, I believe it creates a lot of problems with Scripture. You are implying that the basis of God's choice rests in race or genetics of lineage. That health and happiness is mainly related to righteousness, rather than the free grace of God for His purposes. That eternal heritage and faith / works do not necessarily co-exist. That God's choice is bound to certain individuals DESPITE what they do regarding faith / works, rather than VIA their faith / works. That faith / works are NOT based on God's choice and activity. I think that Scripture and secular sciences and plain common sense / experience reject all these implications. But I can't see your theory working without all of these implications being true. Besides, genetic studies indicate clearly that the human genome is so mixed by now that there is no clear distinction between lineages going back 6000 years.
Hi Josh,
ReplyDeleteI'm struggling to understand what your view of Determinism actually is. Am I right to assume that it seems to be heading toward a place where all are eventually reconciled to God in some way? This would be the only reasonable outcome of determinism in my view - as the hyper-calvinist view (that you just get what you're dealt in terms of your lot in life and eternity and suck it up) doesn't seem to be what you are advocating.
Is there a post on here or a link you could recommend that I could read to understand this better? I'm not rejecting your idea, just probing to try to figure out exactly what the idea is.
I do prefer a universalist interpretation of Hell, but am not convinced it is too obvious from scripture. So I think God wants us to come to terms with his love and justice without the surety of universalism.
DeleteI think the Calvinist alternative of my views (which is not hyper-calvinist - this term has a specific technical definition) still works and is better than Arminianism, unless you embrace paradox of some kind. But if you do this, as I said before you must reject most of the basis for your rejection of Calvinism (since it is based on logic or incongruence with God's nature).
If you want info about universalism, better to ask Dan, he has looked at the sources more than me!
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteI will address your first verse reference in support of works for practical salvation (karma?).
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth."
In the context, Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for ALL. How does the death of Jesus merely become a ransom for some and a type of practical karma for the other?
God says over and over again that He wasn't interested in good deeds, but more the attitude behind those good deeds. Why would God reward a child of Satan for having "faith"? or more importantly as explained by the following verses, why would God give them faith in the first place? Is it to taunt them with bait as ND suggested?
We can understand that faith is given by God and not generated by man:
Rom 12:3 " For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you."
Heb 12:2:
"looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."
I think the Bible is quite clear that faith is about "trusting"... if someone is faithful then they are trust worthy, if I place faith in someone then I trust them. Salvation as I have always read it is to be saved from sin and its consequences, it is about overcoming our sin nature through trusting in God.
I would like to see more evidence that there are two types of salvation.
Cheers, and thanks for sharing your thoughts! Even if they don't convince me, it will enable me to check and improve the validity and soundness of my own convictions :)
Ok, I checked the meaning of "salvation" in several verses and you are right in that it could mean "healing". However my point still stands that in Timothy 2:4 it is about ransom for all, not mere healing for all.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, 1Tim. 2:4-6 or the whole chapter; Paul is speaking to the believers in Christ, that there should be no distinction between Jews and Gentiles concerning salvation and redemption.
ReplyDeleteIn that sense the Lord wants ALL men to be saved, Jews and Gentiles alike, the same it is with the death of Jesus Christ, He gave Himself as a ransom for ALL men, for the Jews and the Gentiles alike with no distinction.
Let's look at the statement 'ALL MEN to be saved'.
If the Lord wants all men (as in every human being) to be saved, and He can not do it, then He is an impotent saviour and untrustworthy. It's as simple as that.
But if the Lord wants to save 'ALL' of His children and will not lose one, but ALL will be saved, then He is an omnipotent (all powerful) saviour, and trustworthy in all His ways.
The same is with the 'L' Limited Atonement.
If Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for 'ALL' (every human being), then every human being would belong to Jesus Christ, because He paid for ALL of their sins. Which means that ALL of their sins are forgiven and nobody can charge them again for their sins. The debt against them has been cancelled by the blood of Jesus Christ.
But we both know that not everyone's sins are forgiven.
And His blood has 100% purchasing power, it pays for ALL them that it is intended for.
So the truth is that Jesus Christ paid a ransom and laid down His life only for His children (His sheep, John 10:11, Hebr. 10:14, Acts 20:28, Tit. 2:10-14 and many more).
Which is called Limited Atonement, and that has started in the beginning in Genesis.
Daniel, there is only one salvation which is by grace alone and that is the new birth, being born again, and it comes just as Jesus has said in (John 3). Any other salvations are by doing something, either by believing in Jesus, calling upon His Name, doing what He has said, believing that Jesus would save us from drowning, or having faith in whatever the need might be.
The blind man had faith in Jesus, so that Jesus would give him the sight of his eyes.
Another might have faith in himself that he can save another man from drowning etc. etc. but none of their salvation is the new birth.
You see that the new birth is different, one cannot do anything to be born again,. He doesn't even know that he is dead (spiritually) in his sins and trespasses, he doesn't think that there is anything missing in his life, that is because he is spiritually dead.
He is a natural man and is only interested in natural things, and the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit.
Remember that we ALL were dead in sins (the elect and the non elect), but God made US, the elect alive, born again in Jesus Christ our Lord (Eph.2:5).
Now, we preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to every man in hope that every man would be saved, IF they do and believe in Jesus Christ, they ALL will be saved from whatever troubles and pains they are in, so that they would receive the blessings of God and not the curse.
Out of all our preaching, ONLY the elect will hear His voice and only those who hear the voice of Jesus Christ will live and be born again (John 5:25) and call Him Abba Father.
Thanks for that Paul,
DeleteI personally think you are reading into the chapter's context of 1 Timothy 2. Chapter 1 even talks about Jesus coming to save "sinners", not just the elect... if you really want to go to context.
Anyway, lets take a different angle. In John 15 Jesus prunes off people who were a part of Him, but are no longer due to a lack of fruit. How did Satan's children become a part of Jesus Himself?
Romans 11 also has the concept of some people being broken off and others being grafted in.
How do these concepts fit in with your ideas? Are the vine and tree merely healing devices or are they analogies of salvation?
Your explanation of 1 Timothy 2:4 as being impossible to be literally true due to it claiming that God is insufficient to save everyone, is an irrelevant argument towards me. I do happen to believe in the reconciliation of all things in Christ, within different ages (aions).
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy discussing our beliefs with each other. Even though we do not agree on everything and at times, spar with each other, we never call into question each other's salvational position in the Messiah and our hearts intent.
I know that Tim sometimes wonder if we are both out in right field sometimes, LOL :-) especially, when you and I beat him up on the false concept of the Trinity.
As far as election is concerned, the Scriptures are quite clear. The election of an individual for a specific mission as documented in the account of Noah, Moses and Jonah, happened in the Bible and is happening even today.
Also, the election of a group or people for a specific mission is also quite clear in the Scriptures. This can be seen in the election of the Jews and the Body of Christ for the sole purpose of evangelizing the world.
However, the election, choosing or predestination of an individual for the sole purpose of salvation before the beginning of time is unscriptural and false for the following reasons.
The purpose of the Torah and Cross was to reconcile all of mankind with God. The first was to show us that it was impossible for mankind to permanently cover their sins. It showed that God was the only way to salvation. We saw this foreshadowed in the garden when God provided animal skins instead of the fig leaves for their covering.
The second was to show that God loved mankind so much that he was willing to provide himself as the ultimate and permanent sacrifice for the covering of their sins. This was also foreshadowed in Genesis as you well know in the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac.
We see this purpose and God's desire for all of mankind to be saved laid out for us in:
”For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ” Titus 2:11
”For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” 1 Tim. 2:3-4
This also shows the aspect of the loving nature of God.
I also love the 1Timothy 2:3–4 verses along with 1 Cor 1:10 because it shows that there is one doctrine.
God also offers the world an open invitation to come home, as seen in John 3:16. The "whosoever" in John 3:16 is anyone that will answer the call.
So far, we have a God that wants to reconcile mankind to himself. He has shown us that we cannot go it alone and is willing to sacrifice himself in order for mankind to come home. He is even sending out an open invitation to everyone to take him up on the offer.
Now, let's throw the concept of election based on an individual’s salvation alone into the mix. The concept that says only those who were chosen before the beginning of time will be saved. Now the invitation reads:
”For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened, as long as you were chosen before the beginning of time.”
Now, I have tried my best both in the past and the last few days to look at the election of an individual based on salvation alone and try to fit it into the nature of God that is supported by Scripture, but I cannot. I have tried so hard because Daniel and Joshua and others are so adamant about it. However, I still come to the same conclusion.
You cannot have the true purpose of Torah and the Cross, which is all mankind to be saved, the open invitation to everyone and the election of an individual based on their salvation alone without adding capricious, hypocrisy and unreliability to the nature of God. It just doesn’t work.
However as always, I am open to scriptural rebuttal. As a matter of fact, Daniel and I have just engaged in a scriptural discussion of this in another section within this comment area. But for now, God has sealed that, in my heart, as part of the true doctrine of God.
The purpose of my article was philosophical, so I deliberately avoided cluttering it with Scriptures. I trust people to have common sense and know the scriptural support for much of what I am saying. Not mentioning Scripture does not imply there is no Scriptural support. Some of what I'm saying has no direct scriptural support OR scriptural opposition, and is merely philosophically necessary (considering the arguments made in previous articles in the series, etc). But I rely on people mentioning in the comments if they have opposing Scriptural concepts to debate. This is how I approach other people's arguments too (unlike many philosophers) - understand the point their making, see if it fits with Scripture of not, and if not give reasons and wait for their explanation. I think this is an appropriate way of discussing, and was practiced by the early Christians including those who wrote the New Testament (although I don't deny they also importantly reasoned directly from Scriptures, as we do elsewhere).
DeleteRegarding election, I have yet to hear of Scriptural opposition for the idea. The concepts people have raised so far, generally fit with my understanding of it anyway. I agree with God's desire to save all men (if you are not universalist, both Calvinists and Arminianists must wrestle with a greater desire of God trumping this one - a desire to preserve free will? A desire to maximise His glory? A desire to preserve Free Agency and His sovereignty? A desire to create certain characters through process, ready for joy in heaven once prepared?). I agree that election is often about groups of people.
Determinists tend to describe faith as a 'work' which I think is misleading. When Paul refers to 'works of the Law' or 'works of the flesh' He is referring to self-righteousness, which (by definition) faith is not. We should call faith a 'meritous act' - something we do, which God ascribes merit to. This is fairly obvious from Scripture, I should think. Determinists reject it as a 'basis' for grace, because Scripture talks about faith itself as an outcome of grace. With this understanding, Romans 11 does talk about election of the individual. Besides, even if 'bending of the knee' did refer to faith as something we do prior to grace - the verse teaches that God chose apart from this, not because of it.
In terms of the invitation not making sense, it makes sense if you re-phrase it like this: God is working to organise a revolution. He secretly scouts out and prepares select individuals for joining (e.g. string up dissatisfaction, national pride, giving them the location and password of a meeting). He then announces over the loudspeaker in the square: the time has come! None who come to the secret meeting will be rejected! Tonight we fight! Only the prepared ones want to and can come, but the universal invite still applies, and part of the point is the demonstration EVEN to those who won't come. I think Arminianism makes little sense of the invite if you truly understand free will. God wants all to be saved but doesn't do it because he wants to preserve some random choice-generating function of our souls that has no basis and so can't be moulded, and is unpredictable (why else would he create beings he knew would only ever go to hell?).
Paul,
ReplyDeleteAs for limited Atonement, I have no problem except when Calvinists and others stick in the elect concept as I laid out above.
As this is all getting a little convoluted and some of the threads seem to have got lost or entangled I've put all my ideas concerning election into a new post. Feel free to comment over there as well as here :)
ReplyDeleteGreat idea clive :) Will do...
DeleteJoshua,
ReplyDeleteAfter much prayer and discernment, let me start by saying that above all and in the Messiah, I count you as my brother and my friend.
With that said, please look at the second comment, my very first comment of this post. I gave you scriptural rebuttal to your philosophical account. You responded by lashing out at me.
Even after apologizing for possibly hurting your feelings in my follow-up comment, you continued to lash out at me and even calling the intent of my heart into question and accusing me of disunity.
I feel and continue to feel that your initial responses to me were unfair.
I will not continue in this tit for tat. I hope you will do the same.
Meshiach Shalom
Keith, thank you for expressing your desire for reconciliation! I desire the same.
DeleteUnfortunately I still can't see anything wrong or unbalanced or insensitive in how I addressed your arguments. I never like to contribute to the feelings of hurt and frustration that I sensed. So I sincerely want you, if you can, to point our exactly which responses were unfair and how.
In the meantime, or if you struggle to do this, all I can do is assure you of my intentions. I was never offended or hurt, though I did get frustrated at the end by the continual assertions that I was, in fact, offended! I did not want to 'lash out', but was merely attempting to continue a scripturally informed and balanced debate.
I did not want to question the intent of your heart, merely the way you went about pursuing it. But you were doing this for Scriptural reasons (though I consider them wrong) - so I wanted this too to be another Scripturally informed discussion. I believe we have the same spirit and see the same nature of God - unity between us should be sweet and strong despite our doctrinal differences, and this is what I want.
I accept my responsibility in a miscommunication of some kind. May Christ help us both grow in love that we may be blameless before God when He comes again! (1 Thessalonians 3:12)
Daniel, we all read into any passage of the Scriptures and that is not necessarily wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think as long as we interpret the Scriptures so that the Lord Jesus is always sovereign within the interpretation then we can't go wrong.
Most Christians say that God loves every human being in the world (John 3:16) without actually reading the Bible properly or asking the Lord whether He really does love everyone.
The doctrine of election is a scary doctrine, and most Christians don't like that doctrine, because it removes the saving power of the new birth from the domain of men and into the courts of the sovereign Lord Jesus Christ our saviour.
Satan's children are not a part of Jesus Christ, they are the enemy of Christ and the enemy of the gospel and they belong to their father the devil (John 8:44).
Well brother, Rom.11 is one of the Calvinists favourite chapter.
Again I like to say that I am not a Calvinist, but I believe and can see the doctrine of election throughout the Bible.
To be able to see the election of God, one must believe and not just acknowledge Romans 9 especially verse 11.
"Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls".
This is a key statement to understand election. If a doctrine does not contain election, the doctrine is most likely not true, because election must stand in every doctrine.
Romans chapter 11. starts in election, as in 'His people'.
His people means, His children the elect. Any other children are not His children or people.
Elijah had the assumption that he was the only one left in Israel who was the elect, but the Lord corrected him saying in v.4 “I have kept for myself seven thousand “ of the elect. And He makes it clear that they were saved by grace on not by works, for if it would be by works, grace would no longer be grace.
Verse 11-25 speaks about the elect of Israel who have fallen away and later be grafted back in again, just the same as it is today among the elect. Perhaps you know of some brothers who have turned away from Jesus and later came back and were grafted back in again into the true Israel of God, the spiritual Israel of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the elect who are born again and not by their will but the will of God.
Hi Keith,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people." Titus 2:11
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" 1 Tim. 2:3-4”
Yes my brother, I always agree with the Scriptures as you know. But remember, I preach a TWO sided salvation.
One side is the new birth, to be born again which is by grace alone and not by works.
The other side is the natural salvation which is by WORKS, by doing something, like believing, faith, water baptism and whatever else the Bible says.
I also call this an elective salvation, the first side is only for the elect, the second side is for ALL men, (in order that election might stand) (Rom. 9:11).
Brother, if there is an ELECTION, that alone demands a REJECTION.
It is not possible to elect ALL human beings.
Election is by the Lords choice alone and not by our choice or our cooperation.
You see, sons of the devil cannot become sons of God, just like you and I cannot become sons to the Queen of England, it is as simple as that.
If that is not possible in the natural, why is it that most Christians say that everybody can become sons to God, all they must do is to accept God, or believe in Him, or jump another few hoops.
To be sons, we must be 'IN' our father before we were born, the same is with the elect (Eph. 1:4).
And to be brothers we must have the same father.
You said, "God also offers the world an open invitation to come home, as seen in John 3:16. The "whosoever" in John 3:16 is anyone that will answer the call."
Keith, can you see any election in John 3:16 or in the whole chapter?
Perhaps another question, can you see election in the first six words of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world”?
Yes, I thought so!
Only few are those who can see it.
And to see it you need a pair of election glasses, which I recommend to get them from the Lord. :-)
With those election glasses you can see election nearly on every page of the Bible and they are just amazing. But the Lord will give them only to them who ask :-)
Well brother, I think there is plenty of room for readjusting your election concept.
I know that controversy for the sake of controversy is sin but controversy for the sake of truth is the divine will of God.
Joshua;
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, I present a third perspective.
In time past we only had two perspectives, the Arminian and the Calvinist perspective and both will never agree with one another. For hundredth of years they have been throwing Bible verses at each other without really understanding each others position.
So then, if they have failed, most likely we also will fail.
Therefore I present an other perspective, in which are both belief-systems contained.
I think that the only way to solve that problem is to understand salvation as two sided.
One aspect of salvation only deals with the new birth (grace), for the elect, and the other aspect deals with the natural salvation which is by works, as in healing, broken marriages etc.
If that is clearly seen in the Scriptures, perhaps there will be unity among the Saints.
Paul:
ReplyDelete---Daniel, we all read into any passage of the Scriptures and that is not necessarily wrong.
I think as long as we interpret the Scriptures so that the Lord Jesus is always sovereign within the interpretation then we can't go wrong.---
Yes, I agree! Keeping to the main concepts of the Bible is imperative but God leaves much of the Bible up to interpretation. I find that interesting to think about. The reasons I believe God didn't write a "text" book covering all the topics chapter by chapter i.e. Chapter 1. God, Chapter 2. Man etc, is because He wants us to live and breath His truths. There is no answer for every situation in life but we have guidelines by which God would teach us to act with wisdom. God's word is rather organic in that it is rich with real life, real experiences and from that we interpret what God is like and sometimes that is no easy task. But the journey is a journey of growth, as we learn more about Him and what He desires us to become.
---Most Christians say that God loves every human being in the world (John 3:16) without actually reading the Bible properly or asking the Lord whether He really does love everyone.---
God does love everybody in the sense of a sacrificial love. He detests the wicked but at the same time desires their best outcome.
---The doctrine of election is a scary doctrine, and most Christians don't like that doctrine, because it removes the saving power of the new birth from the domain of men and into the courts of the sovereign Lord Jesus Christ our saviour.---
True. Is that because of an realisation of a lack of control over hell, or simply that people don't like to lose their autonomy or subject themselves to God?
---Well brother, Rom.11 is one of the Calvinists favourite chapter.---
It is also a very good reconciliationist chapter :)
---Again I like to say that I am not a Calvinist, but I believe and can see the doctrine of election throughout the Bible.
To be able to see the election of God, one must believe and not just acknowledge Romans 9 especially verse 11.
"Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls".
This is a key statement to understand election. If a doctrine does not contain election, the doctrine is most likely not true, because election must stand in every doctrine.---
True, although some Arminianist ideas work well with many scriptures as ND points out. However it is a matter of choosing the best explanation that incorporates all truths, both of election and faith.
continued...
ReplyDeletePaul:
---Romans chapter 11. starts in election, as in 'His people'.
His people means, His children the elect. Any other children are not His children or people.
Elijah had the assumption that he was the only one left in Israel who was the elect, but the Lord corrected him saying in v.4 “I have kept for myself seven thousand “ of the elect. And He makes it clear that they were saved by grace on not by works, for if it would be by works, grace would no longer be grace.
Verse 11-25 speaks about the elect of Israel who have fallen away and later be grafted back in again, just the same as it is today among the elect.---
I agree that the elect can fall away for a time and then be grafted in again. I am not a once saved always saved believer in that sense, but I do believe that the elect are those who are to be saved in this age. I think that you are potentially missing something in Romans 11.
See Romans 11:7,
"What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded."
and then v 11-14
suggests that "the rest were blinded" (in v7) are the "they" who stumbled in vs 11. But vs 11-14 says that those who were not considered to be the elect will be saved.... they have not stumbled that they should fall.
"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"
The end of the chapter finishes with the idea that all will be committed to disobedience so that God may have mercy on all. God is weaving an amazing story of salvation for all people. The elect in one aion and the non elect in another aion.
cheers.
Keith,
ReplyDelete---"”For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened, as long as you were chosen before the beginning of time.”
Now, I have tried my best both in the past and the last few days to look at the election of an individual based on salvation alone and try to fit it into the nature of God that is supported by Scripture, but I cannot. I have tried so hard because Daniel and Joshua and others are so adamant about it. However, I still come to the same conclusion.
You cannot have the true purpose of Torah and the Cross, which is all mankind to be saved, the open invitation to everyone and the election of an individual based on their salvation alone without adding capricious, hypocrisy and unreliability to the nature of God. It just doesn’t work.
Your friend and brother in the Messiah" ---
Yes I understand your view point here. Scripture is written like we have responsibility. But there are also numerous places in scripture where our outcome is decided by God (including our pre conversion) which appears contradictory, especially when God holds us responsible for our actions. This is why I personally struggle with the concept of Calvinism and with the concept of Arminianism. The best explanation I have considered that covers all bases, that works with "free agency" and God's free agency, is the idea of the reconciliation of all things to Christ.
I really would like to work on a post that covers my ideas around the reconciliation of all things to Christ and I would like to hear what you think :)
God Bless! and above all Baruch HaShem!
Clive, here are some interesting sources regarding the reconciliation of all things. They all may not necessarily match with my or Josh's ideas but they are along a similar line. For example, unitarian universalism is not at all what I or Josh propose, nor do we propose a disbelief in hell, but more question the pop interpretation on the nature of hell these days.
ReplyDeleteHere is an "evangelical universalism forum" http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/
Here is another good source with lots of though provoking stuff http://www.tentmaker.org/
Some of this scriptural support is a bit of a stretch, but it still contains some good points and ideas
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univ3.html
cheers.
Hi Paul - although most Arminianists and Calvinists talk past each other, it is not true that they have ALL failed to reconcile their beliefs. A good many individuals believe they have done just that throughout history.
ReplyDeleteIf what you mean is that the majority opinions still do not match, that doesn't surprise me. There's hardly any theological issue where the majority opinions are reconciled - that in no way means there isn't a single unified (even obvious) Scriptural reconciliation that many individuals have discovered.
Also, using this 'majority opinion' definition of doctrinal resolution, I'm afraid your alternative view is not a truly alternative view. It is actually just a variant of the Calvinist view, containing all the problems that the 'majority opinion' sees with the other Calvinist views. You still believe there are people God created with their irrevocable eternal destiny as Hell.
If you want to resolve the real tension between Arminianism and Calvinism you must somehow allow for individual 'sovereign' expression and the necessity of our involvement and responsibility, while still affirming God's complete control over our individual thoughts and decisions and emotions. Difficult task to be sure! I think the idea of Free Agency does just that, when compared to a realistic and full appreciation of what the alternative 'Free Will' would actually look like and imply...
Daniel, You said, 'God does love everybody in the sense of a sacrificial love. He detests the wicked but at the same time desires their best outcome.'
ReplyDeleteWell brother, He actually 'HATES the wicked (Ps. 5:5), just like He hated Esau before they have done good or bad, and again 'in order that election might stand' (Rom. 9:11).
You see, in election the Lord produces the outcome.
In the non-elect, men's deeds produce the outcome.
By 'sacrificial love' I think that you mean that Jesus laid down His life for everybody in the whole world?
Again I can see a problem in that statement, 'election is missing'. Remember, election must stand.
If the Lord Jesus has sacrificed His LIFE, for ten people, then by necessity all TEN people MUST be saved and have eternal life, that is because the Lord Jesus SACRIFICED His sinless LIFE for those ten people, it is an exchange, His life for theirs.
If the Lord Jesus sacrificed His life for the WHOLE WORLD, for everybody, then everybody in the whole world would be saved and have eternal life, because of the simple reason that He laid down His life for theirs.
So then, why is it that some are not saved and do not have life eternal?
The answer to that is simple, Jesus did not sacrifice His life for them, in order that election might stand.
The same is 'LOVE'; if love has no election, love would be meaningless. The power of love is in election.
If God loves everybody in the whole world alike, we would not and could not know what God's love is, because we would have nothing to compare.
Therefore God's love has it's power and meaning by the rejection of others, which is called election.
You said, 'True. Is that because of an realisation of a lack of control over hell, or simply that people don't like to lose their autonomy or subject themselves to God?'
Daniel, you are spot on!
I think it is the hardest task to subject ourselves to God. We all like to give the Lord a little control of our lives, but only as far as 'WE' permit Him.
Continued,
ReplyDeleteYou said, 'I agree that the elect can fall away for a time and then be grafted in again. I am not a once saved always saved believer in that sense, but I do believe that the elect are those who are to be saved in this age. I think that you are potentially missing something in Romans 11.'
I'm not sure where to start on this one, perhaps I will explain the salvation of the elect.
Only the elect has received and will receive a salvation which is by grace alone and that salvation is a free gift of eternal life, that is a spiritual life, born again by the Spirit of God.
In contrast, the non-elect will never get that free gift. To them salvation is to believe in the only one whom God has sent, that is in Jesus Christ our Lord.
The charge of believing in Jesus is to the whole world,and not just only to the non-elect but to ALL, for everyone who believes will be saved, but they will never see life or have eternal life. But the FREE GIFT of God eternal life will only be given to God's children the elect.
Rom. 11:7, it is the nation of Israel who seeks eternal life, but they did not obtain it, because they think that they can obtain it by works, just the same as most Christians today. But the Scriptures says that it is the elect who obtained it (by grace) and the rest were blinded.
The nation Israel cannot see that and neither can they understand it, (v.10) 'let their eyes be darkened TO SEE NOT, and bend their backs forever'.
'Bend their backs forever' is the penalty for thinking that they can obtain the promise by works.
Remember that Sarai's deeds did not produce a son of God, but SARAH's son is a son of God.
You and I and all of us have to make sure that we don't make the same mistake as natural Israel does.
Can you see my brother, that it is a partial darkening for the natural Israel to open the gates for the Gentile nations so that we, the Gentiles can be grafted into the rootstock of Israel, but not to the natural Israel but to the spiritual Israel in Christ Jesus our Lord. For it is impossible for us Gentiles to become Israelites, but in Christ we ALL are the true Israel.
Natural Israel is now jealous of the Gentiles, because they can see that we (the Gentiles) have now received the promise as a free gift by grace and not by works.
Now, when I said the 'Gentiles', I mean the elect among the Gentile nations and not every Gentile person.
So then, what do I say; It is the elect out of the nation Israel which is the true Israel, the Israel of God.
Brother, these things have troubled me for years and I could never see it, till I asked the Lord Jesus Christ to open my eyes and remove that big plank from my eyes, so that I might see clearly.
After that the Lord Jesus in an instant opened my eyes and I could see it from Genesis to Revelation nearly on every page of the Bible. It is such a marvellous doctrine that it will demand a change in most or nearly all of your other doctrines.
Daniel, remember when the Lord Jesus said, 'anything you ask Me, I will do for you', so please ask the Lord Jesus and you will not be disappointed.
Joshua, you said, 'Also, using this 'majority opinion' definition of doctrinal resolution, I'm afraid your alternative view is not a truly alternative view. It is actually just a variant of the Calvinist view, containing all the problems that the 'majority opinion' sees with the other Calvinist views. You still believe there are people God created with their irrevocable eternal destiny as Hell'
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the Calvinists and the Arminianists salvation doctrine, that is because I divide salvation into two, one salvation which is by grace alone, the other salvation is by works. The reason is that we cannot amalgamate grace and works, if grace is mingled with works grace is no longer grace.
The Calvinists major on grace, in fact they condemn works in salvation, just as I do, but only in the new birth salvation.
The Arminianists major on works based salvation, just as I do, but only in a natural salvation like healing etc. and they also weave into salvation a 'Preveniant' grace, which I don't.
A Preveniant grace is a grace which comes before 'grace' to enable a sinner to choose Jesus, or to call upon the Name of the Lord, or to put faith in Jesus, or whatever.
My position is in the middle, I can clearly demonstrate from the Scriptures a salvation which ONLY by grace, apart from works and another salvation which is clearly by works, doing something.
You said, 'You still believe there are people God created with their irrevocable eternal destiny as Hell'
No my brother, I believe that God wants no one to perish but ALL to be saved. Every body who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved and if they don't believe they will be damned.
To resolve the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism, well Joshua, that is a nice thought, but only the Lord can do that. But praise be to the Lord that He has solved that problem in my own heart.
Yes I agree that free agency has a stronger stand than free will, but I have a small problem with both, perhaps a big problem :-)
Paul - I'm sorry but I can't see you agreeing at all with the arminianist salvation doctrine! The arminianist doctrine of salvation is regarding eternal destiny, not the other 'salvation' aspects of healing and temporal blessing. Your view definitely does NOT include the Arminianist view, and it doesn't contain both aspects of salvation. Besides, many people already agree with some form of temporal blessings based on righteousness and/or faith (although I think this often adhered to in a far too simplistic manner, i.e. as with Job's friends). Your view of eternal destiny is Calvinism, and your view of temporal blessing is nothing new and is definitely not linked to election or Arminianism. I can understand you division of 'salvation' into two (this is Scriptural, after all), but I don't think it resolves anything or is useful or new or alternative in any way. Also I think you misinterpret which kind of 'salvation' is meant in many scriptures, and you forget that even the 'temporal' blessings you describe are 'elected' (e.g. the blind man who Jesus healed by faith).
DeleteAll that aside, however, the REAL new aspect to your theory is the basis of God's election (which I still don't completely understand, but seems to be genetics or lineage of some kind?). How do you account for the direct teaching of Scripture that He does NOT elect based on genetics, and that the children will not suffer (in a temporal or eternal sense) from the father's sins? How do you account for the mix of lineages throughout all humanity by now, not least because all humanity now descends from Noah (not Seth or Cain). How do you account for Scriptures suggesting that salvation requires our involvement (this fits with Free Agency, but not with genetics which are literally COMPLETELY apart from anything we do). How to you account for Scriptures implying God's direct control over who He chooses and why, rather than being bound to any strict rule?
Thanks for the links Daniel - had a quick look but will go back when I have more time. I see some comments on Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" over there - I thoroughly enjoyed it and really don't know what all the fuss is about concerning it. I didn't take from the book that he is a Universalist, just more focussed on God's grace than on figuring out who is "in" and who is "out" :)
ReplyDeleteJoshua, at the base of the salvation debate between Calvinists and Aminianism is grace and works.
ReplyDeleteYes I know that the Aminianists add in a grace which is before the grace, but the difference will always be grace and works
.
The problem is not aspects or views or an eternal destiny, it simply is between grace and works.
After a long debate with an Arminian brother, I have asked him whether a man can be saved by doing absolutely nothing? His answer was 'NO'!
Calvinists maintain the position that a man is saved by grace alone.
So then, what do you say, can a severely intellectuall inferior man be saved by doing absolutely nothing?
The answer to the above question determines on your view of grace.
My view of grace is that grace is the opposite of works.
Grace is 100% (ALL) of God and absolutely NOTHING of men.
While we were DEAD in sins and trespasses, Christ saved us.
So when the Lord saved by grace, He did it without our agreement or co-operation.
If all salvation are by works, then there would be no debate and neither would there be a debate if all salvation would be by grace. But when grace came, it brought a division and demanded an explanation.
I demonstrate a temporary SALVATION not a temporary blessing.
For instance a salvation from being born physically blind and then by his effort, will, faith and believing that Jesus would be able to give him eyes to see, was saved from blindness.
In contrast I demonstrate a salvation by grace alone, a man born spiritually dead from Adams sin, and then being made alive by grace alone and only by the will of God.
Yes I say that election is according to the DNA.
The DNA of the children determines to which father they belong.
And the Lord Jesus gave His life for His children, He redeemed His children and not those who belong to their father the devil, the serpent.
Jesus said, 'If God were their Father, they would love Him, but they belonged to their father the devil' (John 8:42-44).
Even though the sons of God cross-bred from the beginning, but the main cross-breeding (DNA) came before the flood in Genesis 6:4 'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.'
Yes the Lord does elect according to the DNA who are His children, starting with Adam Gen. 5:3-32.
This is the line we know, after that the Lord surely knows who are His children and He knows each one by Name.
As for us, we only know them, when they are revealed (born again), and then we call them brothers, that is because we now have the same Father who is in heaven Jesus Christ our Lord and God.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that you will not find your view helpful in your discussion with others! Calvinist or Arminianist disagree with you about the nature of their debate - it is definitely regarding ETERNAL salvation only. The nature of temporal blessings / salvation is a separate matter which a mix of them already agree on with you, without it impacting their debate. You aren't suggesting anything new with your 'works-based temporary salvation/blessing', you're simply suggesting they stop refuting election.
If you suggest to an Arminianist that simply switching their view of works to apply to temporal blessings will solve the debate, they will hate the idea, because the real problem they have with Calvinism is not about allowing some works somewhere in the picture, it is about allowing works into ALL of the picture. This is usually due to a philosophical desire to avoid the concept of people being elected to Hell.
Your view could never solve this problem (requiring works EVERYWHERE to avoid election completely), and as I said it boils down to asking them to stop refuting election without adding anything new. To most people it is simply another Calvinist interpretation, with the addition of a bizarre / convoluted DNA basis of election, for no apparent reason or benefit.
I can see you are trying to be helpful but really it doesn't solve or have any impact on the problem most people have. If you are aware of this when you discuss your view with others, I think it will prevent some angst :)
OK, feeling furious. I just wrote a long reply to you Paul and posted it, and it didn't post and so I lost it...
ReplyDeleteSo here is a shortened version lol.
Jesus died for the whole world, not just for the elect. That is what it says. The Arminian take on it is the take that I have. Jesus death is sufficient for all but only comes into effect once the world or parts of it accept what He has done for them. His death is joy to the world not just the elect.
Regarding Israel, the elect and non-elect in Romans 11.
The elect and non-elect that God distinguished between were from within Israel. Paul continues this concept right through to verse 11 which is talking about the stumbling non-elect within Israel. Paul goes on to claim boldly that the non-elect's stumble will not result in a fall, but in fullness.
This is God's cosmic plan for mankind I believe. That through a process of stumbling, jealousy, moulding etc, He will eventually restore all to Himself, elect and non-elect. He is the Potter we are the clay, He decides our outcome that best fits His plan. We respond to His creative hand in which ever direction that He chooses. He will take our hearts of stone and make them flesh.
Cheers.
Thanks brother Daniel, it is worth while to persist and expand the borders of our understanding, especially when we have opposing views.
ReplyDeleteI understand the Arminian take on the atonement.
But let's look from another perspective.
If the Lord Jesus went to the only one baker in the whole world and paid for every loaf of bread in the whole world, therefore every loaf of bread must belong to the Lord Jesus and no one else would ever own a loaf of bread, that is because He paid for them all and they always would belong to Jesus and stay with Jesus and no one would be able to snatch them out of His hand.
Yes, that would be a nice thought, but that is not Scriptural and not true.
However, the truth is, that the Lord Jesus went to the baker and bought and paid only for ALL the unleavened loaves of bread in the whole world.
Because He is an omnipotent buyer, he makes sure that every loaf of unleavened bread in the whole world would be in His possession and nobody would be able to snatch them out of His hand.
Remember that the Lord Jesus stood before the baker and said, 'let my unleavened bread go' (Ex, 5:1 and 8:1 and 9:1 etc.) and remember the price He paid for His unleavened loaves of bread was written on the two doorposts and the lintel (Ex. 12:7).
Therefore His death is joy only for the elect in the whole world and weeping and mourning and gnashing of teeth for the rejects.
I think it is very important to believe that we cannot add or take away from the blood of Jesus Christ in order to be effective.
By that I mean that the blood-sacrifice of Jesus does NOT become effective when we believe or have faith or trust or whatever.
The blood-sacrifice of Jesus is the finished work once and for all for everyone of whom it is intended for, also called 'Limited Atonement'.
Also, I like your explanation on Romans 11, you nearly have convinced me to adjust my thinking, except that I cannot see a rejection in that interpretation.
You see, an election without a rejection is no election at all.
If eventually all will be accepted, then there was no rejection at first, a temporary rejection is not a rejection at all, it is a delayed acceptance.
Therefore I assume that Romans 11 is mainly speaking about religious Israel.
(Rom.11:17) speaks of us as the wild olive branch being grafted in the original olive tree which is religious Israel, in other words, the religion of the Gentiles (Christianity) has been amalgamated with the religion of Israel, that's why Christianity is so closely knitted with the Jewish religious roots.
Throughout the entire Bible the 'Olive Tree' is always revered to 'Religious Israel', and the 'Fig tree' to to 'Natural Israel', and the 'Vine' is the 'Spiritual Israel'.
We as the Gentiles can never become 'Natural Israel', but we can become 'Religious Israel' by our will or choice and in that sense we have been grafted into the olive tree. but neither Israel or the Gentiles can become Spiritual Israel, for that, a man must be born again and that is only by the will of the Lord and His choice and doing.
So then your cosmic plan of God to restore ALL, would only be for those of 'Religious Israel and Gentile', providing they believe and keep the Commandments?
Surely you don't mean that all mankind would be accepted and restored to God and no one would be rejected and perish?
Hi Paul, thanks for your reply!
ReplyDeleteI understand your interpretation of John 3:16 as being a limiting factor. But I simply don't see a limited atonement or instant ownership as a necessary conclusion. I believe what you have brought forth is a false dichotomy.
The way I see the atonement of Christ, is buy seeing His payment on the cross as a free offer laid down on the table that clears all debts. The defendant can then chose to plead guilty and accept the generous offer or plead guilty and face the death penalty (he will be convicted anyway whether he believes it or not).
I also do not see rejection as necessarily having to be absolute. We were rejects at enmity with God until we came and submitted ourselves before Christ. It is only through Christ's payment that we become His. Christ's death I see as different to the convicting and calling of the Spirit. The convicting of the Spirit conclusively affects people at different stages of life, but the means by which the Spirit can draw people to God is by the mediation done through Christ.
So I don't see rejection as being permanent. I however see that God works in aions or ages. This is where I see the chosen versus the rejected concept manifesting. Some people are chosen within a certain age, and rejects during that age are chosen within a different age. This is why Paul can talk about the elect and non elect eventually all having a purpose that ends in salvation or "fullness".
Regarding the different types of Israel. The Bible isn't really that clear to me. I currently see Israel as two types - the natural, and the true "natural" children of God. The Gentiles are similar - the wild, and the true "wild" children of God. Gentiles are grafted into the true "natural" children of God grown from the olive tree. The rejects are cut off or their grafting in is prolonged.
Not sure what you mean by the "Commandments", but yes I do believe all people will be accepted and restored to God eventually. I do not believe that anyone will be in an eternal state of perishing or rejection. I however do accept the idea as Jesus taught that people will "perish" (for a time) and are rejected (for a time).
What decides when people are accepted or rejected? Similar to what an Arminianist would claim, I believe that people come to God when they decide to. But as a Calvinist would claim, I believe God is in control of how and when that person decides to.
See, to me God is in total control. He moulds us and grows us into who He wants us to become. For some that is a longer road and others a shorter road depending on the character God has created us to be. Some come to Him easier and others do not. But God knows the process by which we all can and will come to Him and values His creation enough to be committed to the sometimes long process. He sets out to lead us and mould us but still respecting our individual characters that He has given us. He wants to win us over, not to force us over. But He knows exactly how to win us over. Thus, He has sovereignty over us and yet has respect for our free agency (not free will) at the same time.
Starting to get onto another topic but cheers! maybe a topic for another day, another post which I plan to do one day soon :)
Cheers.