Universalism and Particular Redemption

[fhansen]

So, by extension, since 'here' leads to 'there', Heaven is all about choice?

Grace and choice.

 

[Der Alte]

No, but this is rather a side issue to that thread, and I'm not sure entirely legal for me to tie it to that thread. (I don't have a problem with doing so, but someone else might, so I'll leave it as is for now.)

Oh ok.

You may if you choose continue this by private message.

 

[disciple Clint]

See Romans 9:16-23. Think that over.

God holds man responsible for Adam's sin (Romans 5:18).
That alone condemns you (John 3:18--"already," John 3:36--"remains;" Ephesians 2:3--"by nature").

Those are all nice scripture but they do not eradicate the logic that I posted, If as you say God is in control of all things and man has no free will then God is responsible for sin, obviously man has free will and sins due to his own free will.

 

[Andrewn]

That every one of the elect be with him in Heaven (and they will be).

The few lucky ones.

 

[Clare73]

Those are all nice scripture but they do not eradicate the logic that I posted,

And herein lies the problem. . .they are "nice Scriptures," but are not authoritative to you, it is your human logic that is your authority.

If as you say God is in control of all things and man has no free will then God is responsible for sin,
obviously man has free will and sins due to his own free will.

I do say God is in control of all things, and
I did not say man is not free to choose what he prefers without external force or constraint,
which is the Biblical meaning of "free will" (which term is not found in the Bible apart from the nomenclature for one of the OT sacrifices, and which means "voluntary").

 

[Mark Quayle]

And yet the bible bascially screams that man does not necessarily do what he's made to do.

So there's several uses of 'made'. The point being, though, regardless, we do as God designed, even when we don't achieve the design humans were built for. There we see again, the 'two wills' thing. The 'Hidden Will' very specific, and will happen regardless. The 'Revealed Will' general. Here you have pointed at the disobedient, not doing as God willed, and not doing what they were designed for as humans. But behind it all, obviously, what they do and don't do, is all specific by God's design for each individual. The 'hidden will' is not 'policy' by which to abide. We don't know the 'hidden will'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn't say that, but what I stated does mean that the doctrine of Sola Fide has opened the door to confusion on this point at to whether or not man is still obligated to be righteous. Faith does not stand in for or replace righteousness nor does it in any way release us from the obligation to be righteous and live accordingly.

Argue with the Bible, then. "By grace through faith" did not begin with Luther. If people get confused, it is through lousy teaching, lousy interpretation, or, possibly, lousy representation of what is really taught. Or, possibly, refusal to listen to Biblical truth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What you posted here is little more than speculation or guess-work. The RC view is essentially consistent with the historic view of the church east and west along with the ECFs-and Scripture taken in its fullest context. The church cites Scripture constantly in her teachings along with quotes at times from those who've grown in wisdom as they've been impacted by the faith recorded in it-and so have something worth hearing. You've been influenced by a novel gospel that was one variation among many that resulted when men basically ignored historic teachings and relied on private interpretations of Scripture.

I got that opinion directly from the parts of it you quoted. I've never read it before, unless bits and pieces. Have no interest in it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Grace and choice.

I doubt the notion, "choice", will even present itself there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The few lucky ones.

You do realize, of course, that the elect were made for their specific place in heaven? Luck of the draw, randomness, chance, have nothing to do with how things turned out, nor did anything superior about them, except God's mere choice, for God's own reason. God's choice.

 

[Clare73]

So there's several uses of 'made'. The point being, though, regardless, we do as God designed, even when we don't achieve the design humans were built for. There we see again, the 'two wills' thing. The 'Hidden Will' very specific, and will happen regardless. The 'Revealed Will' general. Here you have pointed at the disobedient, not doing as God willed, and not doing what they were designed for as humans. But behind it all, obviously, what they do and don't do, is all specific by God's design for each individual. The 'hidden will' is not 'policy' by which to abide. We don't know the 'hidden will'.

As God's revealed will to Pharaoh was, "Let my people go."
But his secret will was to harden Pharaoh's heart so that he would not (Exodus 4:21), in order that God might show him his power and that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Exodus 9:16).
God's will was done throughout, even though Pharaoh disobeyed God's revealed will.

 

[fhansen]

So there's several uses of 'made'. The point being, though, regardless, we do as God designed, even when we don't achieve the design humans were built for. There we see again, the 'two wills' thing. The 'Hidden Will' very specific, and will happen regardless. The 'Revealed Will' general. Here you have pointed at the disobedient, not doing as God willed, and not doing what they were designed for as humans. But behind it all, obviously, what they do and don't do, is all specific by God's design for each individual. The 'hidden will' is not 'policy' by which to abide. We don't know the 'hidden will'.

I see. I think. Guess we just don't know then.

 

[fhansen]

I got that opinion directly from the parts of it you quoted. I've never read it before, unless bits and pieces. Have no interest in it.

I know...you should though. Otherwise its just you and the Book, centuries after the fact.

 

[fhansen]

I doubt the notion, "choice", will even present itself there.

I have no idea why not. For example, I'm dealing with a beloved drug addict right now. I give her all the grace: all the support emotionally and monetarily I can give, all the love, and yet that won't necessarily turn her from her slavery to the drug. At the end of the day she must also want what I want for her. And that's how it works with God. And this is important in understanding the gospel.

About 15 centuries ago the church formulated and set down its teachings on grace, using Augustine's writings mainly that stemmed from his battle against Pelgianism some 75 years prior. In no uncertain terms the church insisted that it was absolutely impossible for man to turn to God in faith and so be justified apart from grace, apart from God taking the intiative because man is lost, incapable of reaching up and finding God; He must find us.

But now justifed, now in union with God, man can work out his salvation together with Him, epuipped with grace, the power of the Spirit by which he can be futher sanctified and do the good he must do and put to death the deeds of the flesh in order to gain eternal life. A choice, and a series of choices to pick up our cross daily, and follow. Or not.

 

[fhansen]

Argue with the Bible, then. "By grace through faith" did not begin with Luther. If people get confused, it is through lousy teaching, lousy interpretation, or, possibly, lousy representation of what is really taught. Or, possibly, refusal to listen to Biblical truth.

The church has always taught by grace through faith, as the foundation, the beginning of a journey to salvation. Never faith alone. So the church taught at Trent:

"...none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification."

It's all grace, and yet grace thast can be resisted. It's quite evident from Genesis through all of His dealings with man that God does not force or cause man to do the right thing; He wants us to want it too, and to realize that the only way to obtain it is through Him, not of ourselves. Otherwise all the evil that man has experienced down through the centuries would be purely needless and gratuitous. Instead evil is the result of man opposing God's will, and God allowing it for a season, for His good purposes while He patiently waits for us to come to our senses and respond to His grace while turning away from the evil that causes so much harm to ourselves and others- and earns us death.

 

[disciple Clint]

And herein lies the problem. . .they are "nice Scriptures," but are not authoritative to you, it is your human logic that is your authority.
I do say God is in control of all things, and
I did not say man is not free to choose what he prefers without external force or constraint,
which is the Biblical meaning of "free will" (which term is not found in the Bible apart from the nomenclature for one of the OT sacrifices, and which means "voluntary").

Your post is a logical contradiction

 

[Mark Quayle]

I see. I think. Guess we just don't know then.

We do know what we are told to do and not to do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I know...you should though. Otherwise its just you and the Book, centuries after the fact.

Not at all —it is me and what you posted. The quotes from the Catholic Catechism you posted demonstrate pretty plainly, that there is a lot of philosophical thinking not derived directly from the Bible. It almost reads like they had to come up with something in order to be the authority.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your post is a logical contradiction

How so?

Because God being in control necessarily means man has no free will?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have no idea why not. For example, I'm dealing with a beloved drug addict right now. I give her all the grace: all the support emotionally and monetarily I can give, all the love, and yet that won't necessarily turn her from her slavery to the drug. At the end of the day she must also want what I want for her. And that's how it works with God. And this is important in understanding the gospel.

About 15 centuries ago the church formulated and set down its teachings on grace, using Augustine's writings mainly that stemmed from his battle against Pelgianism some 75 years prior. In no uncertain terms the church insisted that it was absolutely impossible for man to turn to God in faith and so be justified apart from grace, apart from God taking the intiative because man is lost, incapable of reaching up and finding God; He must find us.

But now justifed, now in union with God, man can work out his salvation together with Him, epuipped with grace, the power of the Spirit by which he can be futher sanctified and do the good he must do and put to death the deeds of the flesh in order to gain eternal life. A choice, and a series of choices to pick up our cross daily, and follow. Or not.

Notice how easy it is to lapse into the vague, poetic sounding, Arminian-style thinking. It reads like a Christian meme on Facebook.

You left out of your reference to "work out your salvation", the phrase "with fear and trembling," and a Reformed favorite, "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good pleasure". This does not at all say that man can work to accomplish his redemption. And we are told plainly, elsewhere, (Eph 2:8) that Salvation, Grace and Faith is not of works. It means that whoever is saved must work accordingly.

Man is not capable of doing anything to please God, apart from faith. And this faith is the work of God. Not generated by the human.

The synergistic notion of grace is self-contradictory. One's actions do not add to God's to yield a more worthy and capable product. That isn't grace. But yes we do work, and must.