Does Matthew 22:14 prove Calvinism and Predestination?

[bbbbbbb]

Yes I’ve been in that discussion before and it is a tough one to really understand. I admit that God did tell Moses that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart before even Moses went to talk with Pharaoh. What I believe was that God being omniscient and omnipresent did harden Pharaoh’s heart because He knew that Pharaoh would not repent anyway and was destined to face eternity in hell, so He used Pharaoh to set an example of what happens to those who oppose God. At that time Pharaoh was probably one of the most powerful men in the world and an excellent candidate to show God’s might and glory.

As I said, it is one of the classic discussions and, if one is honest, not an easy nut to crack. I think most Christians end up somewhere along the spectrum between strong monergism and strong synergism. i tend to see myself toward the monergistic end of the spectrum. As you pointed out previously, one's views are often influenced by various environments. You ended up rejecting the strict monergism of your earlier environment. I grew up in a liberal Presbyterian church which was universalist in its theology with a god who was essentially either dead in action or non-existent. I was not seeking God at all when He saved me. That entire event really stunned me. Thus, I have tended toward monergism in my theology.

There are many others, of course, who have sought God earnestly and have found Him or, having been raised in Christian homes, have observed firsthand the lives of practicing Antinomians. Thus they tend toward the synergistic side of the equation.

My beef is not with people who have seriously studied the issue and have reached a firm belief, even if I disagree with that belief, but with people, usually at one or the other end of the spectrum, who blindly assail anyone and everyone who is not as pure as they are in their theology.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Notice Romans 9:22 and the similarities with Romans 2:4-5.


“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9:22‬ ‭NASB‬‬


“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:4-5‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Yes, I have noticed the similarities.

I also find these two verses from Philippians to be interesting -

1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling

 

[BNR32FAN]

As I said, it is one of the classic discussions and, if one is honest, not an easy nut to crack. I think most Christians end up somewhere along the spectrum between strong monergism and strong synergism. i tend to see myself toward the monergistic end of the spectrum. As you pointed out previously, one's views are often influenced by various environments. You ended up rejecting the strict monergism of your earlier environment. I grew up in a liberal Presbyterian church which was universalist in its theology with a god who was essentially either dead in action or non-existent. I was not seeking God at all when He saved me. That entire event really stunned me. Thus, I have tended toward monergism in my theology.

There are many others, of course, who have sought God earnestly and have found Him or, having been raised in Christian homes, have observed firsthand the lives of practicing Antinomians. Thus they tend toward the synergistic side of the equation.

My beef is not with people who have seriously studied the issue and have reached a firm belief, even if I disagree with that belief, but with people, usually at one or the other end of the spectrum, who blindly assail anyone and everyone who is not as pure as they are in their theology.

I just see verses that to me can only pertain to synergy. John 15:1-10 is very strong evidence in my opinion. Why would Jesus tell His 11 faithful apostles to abide in Him, explain the consequences of failing to abide in Him, and also explain the rewards of abiding in Him IF they abide? We know these men were called by God and they were undeniably true believers. Jesus’ message here appears to indicate the possibility of them failing to abide in Him and even losing their salvation. Even the idea of someone failing to abide in Christ raises the question of how someone could be in Christ then turn away from Him if predestination and eternal security are true. How could these be true if monergy is true?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I just see verses that to me can only pertain to synergy. John 15:1-10 is very strong evidence in my opinion. Why would Jesus tell His 11 faithful apostles to abide in Him, explain the consequences of failing to abide in Him, and also explain the rewards of abiding in Him IF they abide? We know these men were called by God and they were undeniably true believers. Jesus’ message here appears to indicate the possibility of them failing to abide in Him and even losing their salvation. Even the idea of someone failing to abide in Christ raises the question of how someone could be in Christ then turn away from Him if predestination and eternal security are true. How could these be true if monergy is true?

This is the very same John that wrote -

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is the very same John that wrote -

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Yes I was paraphrasing that verse. So how can we reconcile these verses with John 15:1-10? We have to interpret them so that they do not contradict one another without jeopardizing the context of the passages they are taken from.

So first let’s examine John 6:44 but we need to back up a few verses and see what Jesus had just finished saying right before that statement you quoted.

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:37-40, 43-44‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I left out verses 41-42 just to keep the post shorter. So in Jesus’ statement in verse 37 the Greek word translated to “comes or cometh” is ONLY used in the present and imperfect tense. So when He says “All that The Father gives to Me will come to Me and the one who (presently and continuously) comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. I believe this is why He didn’t simply say All that The Father give Me will come to me and I will certainly not cast them out. He added the phrase “and the one who COMES to Me” for a reason. This phrase is unnecessary if His intention was to say that all that The Father give to Him, He will certainly not cast out.

Next point verse 39, the Greek word translated to “will” also means to desire. The same word is used in 1 Timothy 2:4. Surely you would agree that not all men will repent and be saved, so this word doesn’t only refer to something which God has deemed to be true but can also refer to something that God desires to be true. So if you replace the word will with desire it changes the implications of the statement dramatically.

Next is verse 40 where Jesus again emphasizes that it is God’s will that all who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life and Jesus Himself will lift him up on the last day. Now the Greek word here does not emphasize the tense but hopefully you would agree that the person must presently believe in order to be lifted up on the last day.

So Jesus already gave stipulations that must be met in order to be raised up on the last day. The person must be drawn by The Father, he must presently and continuously come to Christ, and He must believe. Hence he must abide/remain in Christ.

Now as for John 10:27-29, I’m glad you included verse 27, many people tend to omit that verse so I’m not going to explain the implications of it as I’m sure your already aware of it. What I want to address is verse 29. What is Jesus actually saying here? Many will say that no one can snatch themselves from The Father’s hand but that doesn’t fit the proper grammar of what’s being said. He doesn’t say no one can snatch themselves, He says no one can snatch them. There’s 3 parties involved here. God, the sheep, and the person doing the snatching. If I had a rabbit in my hand and said no one can snatch this rabbit from my hand am I saying that the rabbit can’t jump from my hand? No I’m saying that no one else can grab the rabbit and take it away from me. In this case a sheep who tries to escape The Father’s hand would cease to be one of Jesus’ sheep because he’s no longer following Christ.

I’ve got to get back to work now but this is how I interpret these verses to coincide with John 15:1-10. I would like to know how you interpret John 15:1-10 to coincide with these verses you have provided and feel free to expound on my interpretation here if you say any contradictions or improper context.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes I was paraphrasing that verse. So how can we reconcile these verses with John 15:1-10? We have to interpret them so that they do not contradict one another without jeopardizing the context of the passages they are taken from.

So first let’s examine John 6:44 but we need to back up a few verses and see what Jesus had just finished saying right before that statement you quoted.

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
‭‭John‬ ‭6:37-40, 43-44‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I left out verses 41-42 just to keep the post shorter. So in Jesus’ statement in verse 37 the Greek word translated to “comes or cometh” is ONLY used in the present and imperfect tense. So when He says “All that The Father gives to Me will come to Me and the one who (presently and continuously) comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. I believe this is why He didn’t simply say All that The Father give Me will come to me and I will certainly not cast them out. He added the phrase “and the one who COMES to Me” for a reason. This phrase is unnecessary if His intention was to say that all that The Father give to Him, He will certainly not cast out.

Next point verse 39, the Greek word translated to “will” also means to desire. The same word is used in 1 Timothy 2:4. Surely you would agree that not all men will repent and be saved, so this word doesn’t only refer to something which God has deemed to be true but can also refer to something that God desires to be true. So if you replace the word will with desire it changes the implications of the statement dramatically.

Next is verse 40 where Jesus again emphasizes that it is God’s will that all who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life and Jesus Himself will lift him up on the last day. Now the Greek word here does not emphasize the tense but hopefully you would agree that the person must presently believe in order to be lifted up on the last day.

So Jesus already gave stipulations that must be met in order to be raised up on the last day. The person must be drawn by The Father, he must presently and continuously come to Christ, and He must believe. Hence he must abide/remain in Christ.

Now as for John 10:27-29, I’m glad you included verse 27, many people tend to omit that verse so I’m not going to explain the implications of it as I’m sure your already aware of it. What I want to address is verse 29. What is Jesus actually saying here? Many will say that no one can snatch themselves from The Father’s hand but that doesn’t fit the proper grammar of what’s being said. He doesn’t say no one can snatch themselves, He says no one can snatch them. There’s 3 parties involved here. God, the sheep, and the person doing the snatching. If I had a rabbit in my hand and said no one can snatch this rabbit from my hand am I saying that the rabbit can’t jump from my hand? No I’m saying that no one else can grab the rabbit and take it away from me. In this case a sheep who tries to escape The Father’s hand would cease to be one of Jesus’ sheep because he’s no longer following Christ.

I’ve got to get back to work now but this is how I interpret these verses to coincide with John 15:1-10. I would like to know how you interpret John 15:1-10 to coincide with these verses you have provided and feel free to expound on my interpretation here if you say any contradictions or improper context.

I am not so sure that we need to reconcile the verses at all unless we happen to think that John was intentionally misleading his readers or was, at best, sloppy in his theology. That, then, would reflect very poorly on our understanding of the Bible and its validity, not to mention our understanding of the role of God, the Holy Spirit, in guiding John as He wrote.

You have not written anything that I have not considered before and you probably know the standard responses, as you have already addressed most of them.

I prefer to take the passages as written and not diminish the meaning of some that, to me, contradict the others.

However, rather than appearing overly rude and curt, i will offer a few thoughts concerning John 15:1-10

John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

We will start with the basic verb found in this passage - abide. It is primarily used in reference to the metaphor of a grape vine. The obvious question is how much effort does a grape vine exert on the parent vine to bear grapes. You may not be a farmer, much less a vintner, but the truth is that grape vines, being plants, cannot make any effort at all to bear grapes. They simply are attached to the parent vine and, should they become detached, they are fruitless. The detachment, when it does take place is not done by the vine, but by some outside influence such as a vinedresser pruning the grape vines. Thus, it is absurd to conclude that Jesus is teaching His disciples, who He says "are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you" is telling them that they need to do something or they will be rejected by God and cast into the rake of fire.

Who or what made them clean? Did they scrub themselves thoroughly in order to become clean?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am not so sure that we need to reconcile the verses at all unless we happen to think that John was intentionally misleading his readers or was, at best, sloppy in his theology. That, then, would reflect very poorly on our understanding of the Bible and its validity, not to mention our understanding of the role of God, the Holy Spirit, in guiding John as He wrote.

You have not written anything that I have not considered before and you probably know the standard responses, as you have already addressed most of them.

I prefer to take the passages as written and not diminish the meaning of some that, to me, contradict the others.

However, rather than appearing overly rude and curt, i will offer a few thoughts concerning John 15:1-10

John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

We will start with the basic verb found in this passage - abide. It is primarily used in reference to the metaphor of a grape vine. The obvious question is how much effort does a grape vine exert on the parent vine to bear grapes. You may not be a farmer, much less a vintner, but the truth is that grape vines, being plants, cannot make any effort at all to bear grapes. They simply are attached to the parent vine and, should they become detached, they are fruitless. The detachment, when it does take place is not done by the vine, but by some outside influence such as a vinedresser pruning the grape vines. Thus, it is absurd to conclude that Jesus is teaching His disciples, who He says "are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you" is telling them that they need to do something or they will be rejected by God and cast into the rake of fire.

Who or what made them clean? Did they scrub themselves thoroughly in order to become clean?

The word clean or pruned is referring to the removal of impurities. I don’t believe this is referring to atonement of sin because Jesus hasn’t been crucified yet. I believe this has to do with the cutting away of their sinful nature which came from Christ’s teachings and guidance. I do believe that the faithful 11 did play some part in this thru their cooperation, without which their cleanliness would not have been successful. What good would the word of God do if they rejected it like so many others, like for example the Pharisees? The Pharisees also heard Jesus teach and His words were not profitable to them because they did not accept them. Judas would also be an example if this.

 

[dms1972]

Matthew 22:14

cho·sen
/ˈCHōzən/

1. adjective

adjective: chosen

1. having been selected as the best or most appropriate.

Guys, I could be completely wrong. I'm still a baby Christian. Let me know your thoughts.

In Jesus name,



boxman144

But what is "election" its shrouded in mystery and is that why we cannot completely define it too exactly - what we do know is that it is not arbitrary. Calvin Himself indicates its not something in ourselves, but in Christ. God doesn't just pick some people.

To quote from his Institutes.

"First, if we seek for the paternal mercy and favor of God, we must turn our eyes upon Christ in whom alone the Father is well pleased (Matt 3:17). When we seek for salvation, life, and a blessed immortality to Him also must we retake ourselves, since he alone is the fountain of life, and the anchor of salvation and the heir of the kingdom of heaven. Then what is the end of election, but just that being adopted as sons by the heavenly Father, we may by his favor obtain salvation and immortality? How muchsoever you speculate and discuss you will perceive that in its ultimate object it goes no farther. Hence, those whom God has adopted as sons, he is said to have elected, not in themselves, but in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:4) because He could love them only in Him, and only as previously being made partakers with Him, honor them with the inheritance of His Kingdom. But if we are elected in Him, we cannot find the certainty of election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at Him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election."​

 

[dms1972]

There are aspects in the calvinistic tradition that stand in palpable contradiction with the New Testament - no less a theologian than Donald G. Bloesch said that,
and he is someone who includes Calvin amongst his theological mentors.

To quote:

"The calvinist position, especially as transmitted through Reformed Orthodoxy, stands in palpable conflict with the New Testament witness. Titus 2:11 assures us that 'the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.'" (from Christian Foundations - Jesus Christ: Saviour and Lord - page 168)​

In the calvinistic tradition please note. Calvin himself was more careful in his articulation, though may not always have been correct either in every detail. But maybe people don't much read Calvin, and some read calvinists rather - and if they do read Calvin they sometimes read him through the lens of what they have been told he thought. Well there are some differences between calvinism and Calvin. RT Kendall wrote a book about English Calvinism which I am told is a helpful overview.

Also even a staunch defender of Calvinism such as "Prince of Preachers" CH Spurgeon takes to task those who would change the word "all" to "some" when expounding certain scriptures.

Salvation by Knowing the Truth - C. H. Spurgeon

To quote from the above

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,- "that is, some men": as if the Holy Spirit could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, 'God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'"​

 

[bbbbbbb]

There are aspects in the calvinistic tradition that stand in palpable contradiction with the New Testament - no less a theologian than Donald G. Bloesch said that,
and he is someone who includes Calvin amongst his theological mentors.

To quote:

"The calvinist position, especially as transmitted through Reformed Orthodoxy, stands in palpable conflict with the New Testament witness. Titus 2:11 assures us that 'the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.'" (from Christian Foundations - Jesus Christ: Saviour and Lord - page 168)​

In the calvinistic tradition please note. Calvin himself was more careful in his articulation, though may not always have been correct either in every detail. But maybe people don't much read Calvin, and some read calvinists rather - and if they do read Calvin they sometimes read him through the lens of what they have been told he thought. Well there are some differences between calvinism and Calvin. RT Kendall wrote a book about English Calvinism which I am told is a helpful overview.

Also even a staunch defender of Calvinism such as "Prince of Preachers" CH Spurgeon takes to task those who would change the word "all" to "some" when expounding certain scriptures.

Salvation by Knowing the Truth - C. H. Spurgeon

To quote from the above

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,- "that is, some men": as if the Holy Spirit could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, 'God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'"​

I smiled when you quoted Donald Bloesch. I happen to know him personally. He lives in my home town. I find him quite curious. He is very much a fish out of the water. He teaches at Dubuque Theological Seminary, which is a United Presbyterian Church U.S.A. seminary and is quite liberal, as is the denomination, yet he, himself, is a member of the United Church of Christ, an even more liberal denomination. However, his background is Swiss Zwinglian and he ended up in the UCC by default when the Swiss Evangelical Church merged with the Congregational Church back in the 1980's. He is one of, if not the last, traditional Christians left in the UCC. He is a lone voice in the wilderness and, as such, is the poster boy for traditional theology. His theological framework began with Karl Barth and has since shifted farther away into traditional Zwinglian theology.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The word clean or pruned is referring to the removal of impurities. I don’t believe this is referring to atonement of sin because Jesus hasn’t been crucified yet. I believe this has to do with the cutting away of their sinful nature which came from Christ’s teachings and guidance. I do believe that the faithful 11 did play some part in this thru their cooperation, without which their cleanliness would not have been successful. What good would the word of God do if they rejected it like so many others, like for example the Pharisees? The Pharisees also heard Jesus teach and His words were not profitable to them because they did not accept them. Judas would also be an example if this.

Judas is a complete conundrum. We have Jesus Himself declaring "12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

He is the pluperfect example used by hyper-Calvinists to demonstrate double election - to salvation and to damnation. There is not a scintilla of doubt that God had foreordained Judas to play his role in betraying Jesus and afterward to commit suicide. There is also not a scintilla of doubt that Judas performed his role willingly and probably without the slightest clue that he was fulfilling God's perfect will.

The conundrum comes down to the question as to what culpability Judas has in betraying Jesus. One can easily argue that he has no culpability whatsoever because he didn't know what he was doing (and thus might be included in Jesus' prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing." Others would argue stridently that Judas is roasting in hell now because he willfully and knowingly betrayed Jesus.

What do you think?

 

[dms1972]

I smiled when you quoted Donald Bloesch. I happen to know him personally. He lives in my home town. I find him quite curious. He is very much a fish out of the water. He teaches at Dubuque Theological Seminary, which is a United Presbyterian Church U.S.A. seminary and is quite liberal, as is the denomination, yet he, himself, is a member of the United Church of Christ, an even more liberal denomination. However, his background is Swiss Zwinglian and he ended up in the UCC by default when the Swiss Evangelical Church merged with the Congregational Church back in the 1980's. He is one of, if not the last, traditional Christians left in the UCC. He is a lone voice in the wilderness and, as such, is the poster boy for traditional theology. His theological framework began with Karl Barth and has since shifted farther away into traditional Zwinglian theology.

Well you knew he passed away about ten years ago right?

Bloesch defied any close categorisation in many respects, and I could hardly see him as a "posterboy" for anything, except by those who never read very much of him - because he was thorougly not partisan - and he didn't absolutise the relative - he could critique any theological movement and did and do that while acknowledging the good in it. He was a genuine theologian with an historic and encyclopedic knowledge of the theological scene.

I have five volumes of his masterwork Christian Foundations - I used to have one of his earlier Essentials of Evangelical theology, and I have a few shorter books of his such as Faith and its Counterfeits.

In which works did you detect his shift away from Barth toward "traditional Zwingian theology"?

In his volume on the Holy Spirit there is one reference to Zwingli in the whole book, compared with over two dozen index references to each of Calvin, Luther and Barth. In the other volumes its much the same only a handful of references to Zwingli and maybe five times as many index references to Calvin, Luther and Barth.

He was never uncritical of Barth - he disagreed with Barth's extreme theological objectivism.

https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jctr

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well you knew he passed away about ten years ago right?

Bloesch defied any close categorisation in many respects, and I could hardly see him as a "posterboy" for anything, except by those who never read very much of him - because he was thorougly not partisan - he and he didn't absolutise the relative - he could critique any theological movement and did and do that while acknowledging the good in it. He was a genuine theologian with an historic and encyclopedic knowledge of the theological scene.

I have five volumes of his masterwork Christian Foundations - I used to have one of his earlier Essentials of Evangelical theology, and I have a few shorter books of his such as Faith and its Counterfeits.

In which works did you detect his shift away from Barth toward "traditional Zwingian theology"?

In his volume on the Holy Spirit there is one reference to Zwingli in the whole book, compared with over two dozen index references to each of Calvin, Luther and Barth. In the other volumes its much the same only a handful of references to Zwingli and maybe five times as many index references to Calvin, Luther and Barth.

He was never uncritical of Barth - he disagreed with Barth's extreme theological objectivism.

https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jctr

I was unaware that he had passed away. You are quite correct that it would have been absurd to characterize him as a "posterboy". However, the small remnant of traditionalists within the UCC (who rarely read any works of theology (or they would have migrated to more theologically conservative denominations)) did view him as their spokesman within the UCC. Fortunately, for everyone else, his influence, although marginal in the UCC, was felt in a much wider circle.

He was Zwinglian by tradition - meaning that his church roots came through his family in northern Switzerland. Had his family come from Bavaria he might have been Lutheran or even Catholic or had they come from eastern Switzerland he might have been Calvinist. The fact is that his background and theological education (very much colored by Barth's neo-orthodoxy) merely prepared him to develop his own theology.

Thank you for your excellent reply.

 

[dms1972]

I was unaware that he had passed away. You are quite correct that it would have been absurd to characterize him as a "posterboy". However, the small remnant of traditionalists within the UCC (who rarely read any works of theology (or they would have migrated to more theologically conservative denominations)) did view him as their spokesman within the UCC. Fortunately, for everyone else, his influence, although marginal in the UCC, was felt in a much wider circle.

He was Zwinglian by tradition - meaning that his church roots came through his family in northern Switzerland. Had his family come from Bavaria he might have been Lutheran or even Catholic or had they come from eastern Switzerland he might have been Calvinist. The fact is that his background and theological education (very much colored by Barth's neo-orthodoxy) merely prepared him to develop his own theology.

Thank you for your excellent reply.

Sorry if I was a bit feisty in my reply.

He seems to have been pietist by family background but not radically pietist. Thelogically his main mentors seem to have been Calvin, Luther and Barth. His position was formed out of reflection on the Scriptures and in dialogue with the theologians past and present.

One of his keenest insights I believe was that a doctrine of Inerrancy by itself is not necessarily sufficient to keep any church from slipping into error, after all do not some of the sects also hold to inerrancy? His discussion of these terms Inerrancy and Infallability in his volume on Holy Scripture I find helpful.

He calls his first volume of christian foundations A Theology of Word and Spirit - and I think that important theme of keeping Word and Spirit together continues through the series.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sorry if I was a bit feisty in my reply.

He seems to have been pietist by family background but not radically pietist. Thelogically his main mentors seem to have been Calvin, Luther and Barth. His position was formed out of reflection on the Scriptures and in dialogue with the theologians past and present.

One of his keenest insights I believe was that a doctrine of Inerrancy by itself is not necessarily sufficient to keep any church from slipping into error, after all do not some of the sects also hold to inerrancy? His discussion of these terms Inerrancy and Infallability in his volume on Holy Scripture I find helpful.

He calls his first volume of christian foundations A Theology of Word and Spirit - and I think that important theme of keeping Word and Spirit together continues through the series.

No problem. Your "feistiness" pales in comparison with some posters here at CF. I really appreciate your knowledge of Donald Bloesch. My knowledge of him was quite superficial, formed from familial relationships. As they say, a prophet is without honor in his home town.