I'll never join you, Count Calvin.

[battlepig]

You know what I reckon. You guys will never sort this age old argument out as long as you both hold to the belief that your theology is based on sound doctrine - and therefore you can’t be wrong.

One of the greatest hurdles for you, which ever side of it you stand, is this: the notion of a God who sends many to eternal punishment in hell irrespective of whether you have even heard of the gospel – let alone Jesus, and irrespective of whose choice it is to do anything about it.

I agree with Cygnusx1... if the part in bold is true, that is a pretty strong argument that God never wanted to save everyone who ever lived.

Since we are on the topic of Star Wars analogies, here's one i thought up...
Mankind isn't like Obi wan trying to resist the forces of evil, or even like the conflicted and flawed hero anakin. Mankind is more aptly compared to Darth Sidious, bad to the bone and not capable of good in any form.

Those who claim that predestination compromises on God's goodness should ask themselves; did they feel any sympathy for the Emperor when Darth Vader chucked him down the garbage chute? Did they think it was unfair that old palpatine didn't get any chance to repent? Probably not, and likewise it is not unfair in anyway when God leaves man to own devices. Man is rotten to the core and undeserving of any mercy whatsoever. It is only God's divine grace and kindness to his enemies that decides to save some.

If God's fairness and goodness is such and issue with for them, why aren't they up in arms complaining that God doesn't save the devil and his demons? Isn't that unfair?

 

[Jedi]

I thought many baptists took the OSAS position?

You have proven me wrong

The doctrine of the security of the believer, “Once Saved, Always Saved,” is a whole different issue, though. It seems that most people who hold to the free will of man (like my theological hero, C.S. Lewis) also don’t stick to the OSAS position. Surprisingly, this is the only area where my hero and I don’t agree – there are some problems in saying people can lose their salvation that are so difficult that it seems easier to affirm OSAS than to deny it and face the problems that follow. I suppose we’ll save that discussion for another time.

This debate has gone on for centuries. None of your "rebuttals" are new and have been responded to by hundreds of Calvinists in the past

Really? That’s odd you say that because in all my discussions with Calvinists, not a single one has responded to the problem of their God choosing the lesser glory or being a bad parent. They just refer to Romans 9 all the time, which I’ve dissected verse by verse to provide a proper exegesis for them (still have it if you’re interested).

What it comes down to is how you interpret scripture.

Not quite. Some of the heaviest arguments I’ve given against the deterministic God of Calvinism are philosophical in nature – not scriptural. Yet even these have not been responded to.

For an Arminian to completely ignore parts of the Bible that are irreconcilable with their presuppositions is ignorant

Agreed, but if this were the case, I should have never studied Romans 9 (among other favorite passages of Calvinists) to show how such passages don’t really say what Calvinists want it to say.

What do you mean by "entirely good"? As in 100%, with nothing else? Is it possible for good to be "entirely good" and execute other traits? If so, then what are you trying to argue here?

By referring to God as “entirely good,” I mean to say that God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God. Any trait God may have (say, justice, mercy, power, omnipresence, etc) may exist but only within the confines of His goodness. What I am trying to show here is that there is a choice to be made: is power to be sought over goodness or vice versa? If power is to be sought, then you could very well say that God could have saved all people and stopped all tragedy and evil in the world but did not want to (thus making him not all-good, for an all-good being would want to eliminate as much evil as possible). If goodness is to be sought over power, then you could say that God couldn’t save everyone (for not all wish to be saved and you cannot force free creatures) or stop all evil.

Using phrases like "God didn't care enough to save them" is framing the argument, it would be better to use a term like "unwilling."

Euphemisms don’t work with me. If he is unwilling to save people, he did not care enough to save them. That’s the reality of the situation without the sugar coating.

And it's not mutually unintelligible to say that God was unwilling to save them and to say that he punished them for their wickedness.

Then you have that annoying problem of God choosing the lesser of two glories: mowing his enemies down rather than turning them.

Their are important questions that need to be adressed here like "Why did they not turn to God"?

The Calvinistic response would be something like “God did not turn their hearts to him” (putting all salvation and damnation upon God). The Arminian response would be “Because they would never have it any other way than themselves” (putting the fault of damnation on the people themselves).

The idea in scripture is that God's power and will supercedes that of man.

God’s power and will are higher than man’s, of course, but to say that He forces the will of men… you end up with some very serious problems there.

You bring up the classic "force" argument, but fail to see the implications of it - if man does not will to come to God, then why would he?

Of course, of course! That’s a question for the Calvinists who assert that men have nothing to do with their coming to God because they are “dead in their sins” and that it is God who turns them to Himself. The questions that arise from this are (a) why did God not save all He could, and (b) why did he save them in the first place if their wills were completely against him and they were going to get what they wanted (eternal separation from him)?

What would make him want to act against his desires and come to God? If the Calvinist is correct, than everyone must be "forced"

And this is where the doctrine of total depravity comes into play for the Calvinist. I simply don’t believe it for two reasons: (a) human nature has shown us much goodness outside the church and (b) if we were totally depraved, we should have never known we were totally depraved. Man may be depraved of goodness, sure, but to say that there is not even the ability to choose good of his own accord… I can’t find any biblical or philosophical support for that idea. Indeed, I find evidence against that: if men cannot possible choose good of their own accord, then they cannot choose to refrain from evil (for choosing to refrain from evil would be, in itself, a good act). If this is so, how can men be justly condemned for doing evil – they had no other option. Thus the doctrine of total depravity turns God into a very unjust judge, condemning people for doing things over which they had no control.

Calvinists do not view choice as a necessary component of accountability. AN interesting example I've seen brought up goes something like this - if you were stuck in a cave with nothing but hot dog's, and ate them to survive, would you be "accountable" for eating them.

The analogy isn’t quite so perfect, since there is still choice involved: do I eat to live or do I refrain from eating to die? Calvinists don’t understand the essence of morality if they leave choice out of accountability. C.S. Lewis describes choice and accountability this way: “I am not angry—except perhaps for a moment before I come to my senses—with a man who trips me up by accident; I am angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed. Yet the first has hurt me and the second has not” (Mere Christianity, 18). Intent and choice is the essence of morality – take these things away and “good” and “evil” lose their meaning.



There is a difference in the moral accountability of these two situations simply because of intent and choice: (a) I’m driving down the road and see a little old lady and, try as I might, I try to swerve to miss her but alas, I hit her anyway and she dies; and (b) I’m driving down the road and see a little old lady and punch on the gas and purposefully slam right into her, killing her dead. The outcome is the same yet there is a stark difference between the two situations: I am not morally condemned in the first but I am in the second. Why is this? Because of choice/intent. If what you say is true, and choice has nothing to do with accountability, then in these two examples, both people are equally condemned. Your philosophy throws morality into chaos.

Again, I bring up the hot dog anaology. Did you have any control over eating the hot dogs in the cave?

Yes, I do: I could eat them or refrain. Yet as I pointed out, if people have no possibility of choosing good, they can’t even refrain from doing evil (for that itself would be a good act). This being true, how in the world can you justly condemn them for doing evil? They had no choice in the matter (unlike your hotdog situation).

Clearly there is some "favoritism" in that God has a special saving love for his childrens which he does not have for those who reject him. WOuld you deny this?

Yes, I do. God wants to save everybody (2 Peter 3:9) and doesn’t love some more than others. A God who did so would be unjust, just as a judge who played favorites would also be unjust.

Who said that God "wanted" to save everyone?

2 Peter 3:9. Along with this, for God to be fair, if He is going to save some not based on anything about these people as individuals (as if they merited His saving them by being better than their peers), God has to save everyone, else He is playing favorites and is thus unjust. The only other options are to either not save anyone (still left with the problem of choosing the lesser glory) or leaving the choice to be saved up to them.

Your begging the question - assuming your own concepts of so called "lesser glory" and then applying it to God.

Haha, oh, you disagree, then? It’s better to kill your enemy than to have him join you? Can you please explain this to me. Further still, why would God go through the trouble of saving anyone if it were better (or even equal) to kill your enemy than to turn him?

Let's expand on your situation a bit. Say a mother has some children who have gotten druck[sic] and are drowning in a body of water. Does the mother have an obligation to save all her children? Would she be an "evil" if she choice to save a few and left the others to the punishment of their own devices? (this analogy is not quite perfect for reasons that may come up later, but hopefully it does make a point)

She would be guilty of bad parenting and would be both not all good and unjust. Why save some when she could have saved all? What sort of parent would just let their children die when he/she could have saved them? Such a parent is either unloving, evil, or both.

I will not serve a God that does not do all He can to promote goodness, I will not serve a God who shows favoritism, I will not serve a God who chooses the lesser of two glories, I will not serve a God who let’s people perish in hell for eternity when He could have saved them. That God, the God of Calvinism, is a tyrant and is beneath my contempt.

Be back with more later.

 

[BigNorsk]

a sorta off topic question: i know that there is Arminianism and Calvanism but is there anything else?

Lutheranism is solidly in the middle.

Man cannot save himself nor even cooperate in his salvation. There is none good, none who seek God. God must call the person if order for the person to be saved. A person is not capable of saving himself of accepting the gift of salvation (that would be a work), the person is only capable of resisting, of rejecting God. The person is saved when he gives up or quits resisting and God saves him basically he is saved when he quits working against God and comes to faith.

God wants all to be saved, yet he does not force man to be saved. Man has the ability to resist God which many use to their eternal damnation.

To be saved is wholely and entirely a work of God, to be condemned is a work of man.

So Lutherans would be in pretty close agreement with Calvin on the Total depravity of man and the unconditional election. But would reject the ideas of limited atonement (not that all are saved, but that salvation is available to many if not all and many to whom it is available reject it). A phrase that would partially explain it is "Sufficient for all, effective for some."

Of course irresistable grace is not accepted, which is a misnomer because Calvin believed God's grace was indeed resistable only election was not. But Lutherans believe not only that grace is resistable but indeed that that is the only available response, you resist or you don't, and it shouldn't be taken that not resisting equals accepting because that isn't quite right though it is accepting on some level. But to be able to truly accept would mean that man has the ability to save himself, to be able to change his very nature and pretty clearly he can do no such thing.

And Perseverance of the Saints or Once Saved Always Saved is also not followed even though both the Arminians and the Calvinists generally believe different flavors of it. Lutherans believe that people who believe are saved and people who don't aren't and tend to leave it at that. We don't look to ourselves for proof of our salvation but to the Bible. The Bible teaches that those who believe are saved. We don't put our faith in things like a religious experience, or that "we accepted" God or asked him to live in our hearts or anything like that. Nor do we play with fire saying that we cannot lay down what God has given.

So yes, there is something out there different and not different in a fringe sort of way.

Marv

 

[Jedi]

One of the greatest hurdles for you, which ever side of it you stand, is this: the notion of a God who sends many to eternal punishment in hell irrespective of whether you have even heard of the gospel – let alone Jesus, and irrespective of whose choice it is to do anything about it.

This notion is far too presumptuous. Until scripture says that God sends people to hell simply because they haven't heard of Him, I see no reason to believe He does. God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11) and is not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentence (2 Peter 3:9). Based upon these two aspects of the nature of God, it follows that everyone will be given a fair opportunity at salvation. How is left a mystery (perhaps all the facts are laid out for those who have never heard while before God at judgment?). It seems rather irrational to give people a choice and set the default to hell if they don't choose or honor their choice if they're making a decision based solely on bad information and would not have made that same choice had accurate information been available to them.

 

[Dmckay]

Though I can't quite pinpoint why, one of my favorite lines from the Star Wars movies is uttered by the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan when he is being held captive on Geonosis and first encounters the infamous Count Dooku. The Count, a Sith Lord in secret, asks Obi-Wan to join him to which Obi-Wan responds, "I'll never join you, Count Dooku."

This phrase, properly modified of course, sums up my response to John Calvin. I've found that those who hold close to Calvinistic theology have power at the center of their theological world: they are afraid of anything compromising God's absolute power and sovereignty. They persue this power even at the cost of God's goodness (fittingly, much like a Sith Lord would do). Apparently, they can serve a God who is not all good but they cannot serve a God who is not all powerful.

Perhaps an example might demonstrate this fact. Take soteriology (the study of salvation), for instance. The Bible is clear that not everyone is saved. This leaves us with a choice: (a) is God unable to save some people or (b) is God unwilling to save some people? The former compromises God's power while the latter compromises His goodness.

Calvinists respond that God chose according to His will who will be saved and who will not, but this response leads to more problems than it solves. Contrary to Romans 2:11, God is now showing favoritism (choosing who will be saved solely by His own personal fancey). 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentence, but this clearly does not apply to the Calvinisitic God (who the Calvinists say is able to save all but chooses not to. What sort of God would want to save all people, be able to save all people, yet not save all people?).

Calvinists will be quick to point out that it is to God's glory that the wicked burn in hell. Yet let it be known that there is more glory in having your enemies join you than to mow them down like grass. If this were not true, why would God go through the trouble of saving anyone?. The destruction of the wicked may be good, but the salvation of the wicked is even better. If this is so, and God is able to save whomever He wants, why would He choose the less glorious route of destroying those He could have saved? Calvin's God has chosen the lesser glory.

If Calvin's God would choose a lesser glory over a greater one, then Calvin's God is not all-good (for an all-good being would want to maximize the amount of goodness). The picture of Calvin's God is not a pretty one, even in the kindest light. Imagine a parent of four children who warns his kids not to go play near the bear's cave. The children hear their father's warning but off they go anyway to have their fun at the bear's cave. Soon they find themselves cornered by bears and unable to save themselves. Now what sort of parent, able to save all the trapped children, would save only two of those children and not all four? That's precisely the sort of God Calvinists present - a being whose parenting skills would have any one of us guilty of poor parenting on account of child neglect.

On the flip side, I do not see the problem Calvinists have with the idea that God could not save everyone - that God allows people the freedom to choose to either do things their way or God's way and cannot possibly save people if they do not wish to be saved. Is it because they want to serve a God who is "able to do anything?" Scripture already says there are limitations to what God can do (e.g. Hebrews 6:18, "it is impossible for God to lie"), so that desire has already been thwarted elsewhere. Omnipotence should be understood as "being able to do anything possible." Phrases like "with God all things are possible" should be understood within their proper context, else they would contradict both logic and scripture.

I suppose if push came to shove, I could serve a God that is not all-powerful. I cannot serve a God that is not all-good. It's a simple matter of my placing goodness at a higher priority than power. Thankfully, it is not necessary to say that God is not all-powerful, only to qualify omnipotence to mean "being able to do anything possible," thus dodging all the logical and scriptural problems faced by those who use the phrase "all-powerful" to mean "able to do anything."

Just as Obi-wan prized goodness over power, my response to Calvin and his theology is this: I'll never join you, Count Calvin.

First of all, I am NOT a Calvinist. That being said, I would hope that you would, as a Christian, spend at least as much time learning the Attributes of the G-d you identify yourself with, as you have focusing on Lukas' Star Wars world. Most of the things that you question in your OP would be understood if you realized that G-d is G-d presicely because He has the Nature and attributes that He does have, and that they must remain in constant balance—lest He go over to the Dark Side. If you don't have the time or commitment to read through Charnock's Existence and Attributes of G-d, then I would suggest you get and read a copy of the small paperback book by Pink entitled, The Attributes of G-d. You can read through Pink's book in the same amount of time that it takes you to watch a Star War's movie.

 

[S Walch]

Man cannot save himself nor even cooperate in his salvation. There is none good, none who seek God. God must call the person if order for the person to be saved. A person is not capable of saving himself of accepting the gift of salvation (that would be a work), the person is only capable of resisting, of rejecting God. The person is saved when he gives up or quits resisting and God saves him basically he is saved when he quits working against God and comes to faith.

Lutherens therefore misunderstand what a "work" is.

There is nothing you can do to earn salvation, that's a granted.

But it is still up to you to accept that gift of salvation, so it is therefore something to have to do to recieve it, but not [/i]earn[/i] it.

Think of it like this.

I give a Present to a random stranger. This gift is free to him, he hasn't earned it and as far as he's concerned, he doesn't deserve it either. It is still up to him to either accept my gift, or reject it.

He could then accept it, and I give it to him. It's then his to keep. But due to his free will, it's also up to him whether he decides to give it back or not. Even after he's accepted my gift, he is still entitled to return it.

Now, think of it like God.

God (in this analogy, me) has this free gift of salvation infront of mankind (the stranger) all the time.

We have done absolutely nothing to earn this gift of salvation, but God has it under our noses to either accept it or reject it. If we choose to reject it, he still keeps it there for us to turn back to him and accept it.

When we accept it, we have to have faith in order to accept it, so you do have to do something - which is have faith

"For we are saved by grace, through faith"

But then, if we have the choice to either accept it or reject it the first time, who's not to say we have the choice after we've accepted it to give it back again?

We either have free will, or we don't.

 

[PujolsisbetterthanBonds]

Euphemisms don’t work with me. If he is unwilling to save people, he did not care enough to save them. That’s the reality of the situation without the sugar coating.

You are arguing from the point of our limited human understanding. Of course the thought of God being either unable or uncaring seems incongruent. The problem is that neither of your thoughts are accurate. To hold to either view you present is to misrepresent God -- that's the reality without the sugar coating. You have forced an unlimitled God into a very restricted space -- for the sake of your argument. And what have you proved exactly?

And this is where the doctrine of total depravity comes into play for the Calvinist. I simply don’t believe it for two reasons: (a) human nature has shown us much goodness outside the church and (b) if we were totally depraved, we should have never known we were totally depraved. Man may be depraved of goodness, sure, but to say that there is not even the ability to choose good of his own accord… I can’t find any biblical or philosophical support for that idea. Indeed, I find evidence against that: if men cannot possible choose good of their own accord, then they cannot choose to refrain from evil (for choosing to refrain from evil would be, in itself, a good act). If this is so, how can men be justly condemned for doing evil – they had no other option. Thus the doctrine of total depravity turns God into a very unjust judge, condemning people for doing things over which they had no control.

Indeed man would have never have known about the extent of his sinfulness and depravity had he not come into contact with the law of God. And the only good a man knows to do is the result of God writing His law on mans heart - Rom. 2:11-15. In fact the good that the unregenerate man does in this life will testify against him on the day of judgment. So man is totally accountable for his actions. There is no truth that man has no control over his actions. Man knows right from wrong because God has given him a conscience and when man violates that internal warning, he stands condemned by his actions. The problem with your arguement is that you believe that man can choose good of his own accord. That's only possible because God placed that capacity within him. On his own, man cannot do good, will not do good, cannot understand good, has no good. So to that extent, man, without God's input (His law on their hearts and conscience) is depraved and yet because of God's input it makes man resposible for his actions.

Go Cards!

 

[Jedi]

That being said, I would hope that you would, as a Christian, spend at least as much time learning the Attributes of the G-d you identify yourself with, as you have focusing on Lukas' Star Wars world.

I’m a theology major with a philosophy minor (and a management minor) at a Christian University, so your hopes are quite satisfied.

Most of the things that you question in your OP would be understood if you realized that G-d is G-d presicely because He has the Nature and attributes that He does have, and that they must remain in constant balance—lest He go over to the Dark Side.

The “dark side” is achieved whenever power is sought at the expense of goodness and that is precisely what Calvinism asserts in the nature of God.

Indeed man would have never have known about the extent of his sinfulness and depravity had he not come into contact with the law of God. And the only good a man knows to do is the result of God writing His law on mans heart - Rom. 2:11-15.

Quite right, but to say that man has lost all notion of what goodness is… that conclusion just isn’t warranted and has the evidence of good works existing outside of the church against it (for if only those who know God through Christianity are able to do good, why is it that many non-believers do good things such as selflessness, charity, honor, patience, tolerance, mercy, justice, etc?)

In fact the good that the unregenerate man does in this life will testify against him on the day of judgment.

I’ve heard Calvinists say this, but it absolutely makes no sense. If what you say is true, the non-believer who saves an elderly nun from a speeding car by pushing her out of the way and, in the processes, gets hit himself and dies will have that selfless act counted against him on the day of judgment? Such an assertion is simply irrational. Such a God punishes people for doing good and I will never ally myself with such a being.

So man is totally accountable for his actions.

If he can only do evil, as Calvinists assert, how can man be justly held accountable for his actions? He could have done nothing else. You might as well condemn a river for flowing downstream because it didn’t suit your fancy.

Man knows right from wrong because God has given him a conscience and when man violates that internal warning, he stands condemned by his actions.

This presumes that man not only knows right from wrong but freely chooses to do wrong. If man cannot possibly do good of his own accord (without God making him do it), then he cannot be held responsible for not doing good.

The problem with your arguement[sic] is that you believe that man can choose good of his own accord. That's only possible because God placed that capacity within him.

Quite right – God gave men the freedom to choose of their own accord whether to do good or evil, to accept or reject Him. This is the fact I’ve been playing on – it’s no “problem” at all.

On his own, man cannot do good, will not do good, cannot understand good, has no good.

On his own accord, in the technical sense you are speaking in, man can do absolutely nothing: he can’t choose evil, he can’t choose good, he can’t think, he can’t choose at all. God giving humans the ability to choose (and consequently, the ability to understand what they are choosing) is essential to the justice of praising a man for doing good or condemning a man for doing evil.

 

[philN]

Pedro the Lion said it best: "We're still so tightly wrapped around our foregone conclusions."

 

[PujolsisbetterthanBonds]

This notion is far too presumptuous. Until scripture says that God sends people to hell simply because they haven't heard of Him, I see no reason to believe He does. God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11)

You have missed the point. Wouldn't God be showing favoritism if He allowed those who haven't heard of the gospel into heaven? Wouldn't they become an exception? If that were true then mankind would be better off never hearing the gospel at all. Ignorance would truly be bliss in the end. You could live a life of sin and still be rewarded with heaven???????????

The total import of Paul's teaching in Romans 1-3 is that man will be held accountable for his actions. Whether he is a Jew or a Gentile. Does the phrase "perish without the law" mean something different than what it says? Sure the Jews have the advantage because they were given the law, but that simply makes them more responsible and thus a greater punishment awaits them -- Luke 12:47-48.

 

[Jedi]

You have missed the point.

I don’t see how, but okay.

Wouldn't God be showing favoritism if He allowed those who haven't heard of the gospel into heaven?

It wouldn’t be “favoritism” per se, but would make salvation rather arbitrary. Those who happened, by chance, not to hear of the gospel get a free ride. That’s why, in my response, I described the choice of these individuals as still being essential to their salvation or damnation.

Wouldn't they become an exception? If that were true then mankind would be better off never hearing the gospel at all. Ignorance would truly be bliss in the end. You could live a life of sin and still be rewarded with heaven???????????

You’re quite right – that’s why I don’t promote that idea. I never said that ignorance will save anyone, only that everyone will be given a fair opportunity at salvation.

The total import of Paul's teaching in Romans 1-3 is that man will be held accountable for his actions.

Quite right. Yet this truth leads to another conclusion: that people are capable of choosing between good and evil, whether they are in the church or not. If people had no idea what good and evil were, they could not be held morally accountable in doing one or the other. Jesus clearly believed that ignorance of good and evil excused bad actions (cf. John 9:41, Luke 23:34).

 

[PujolsisbetterthanBonds]

To begin with, I wish I knew how to wrap all the quote boxes from various threads into mine. I'm so jealous of people who can do that! I guess I need a crash course on how the system works. In the meantime I'll just keep experimenting. So sorry if this doesn't look right.

Quite right, but to say that man has lost all notion of what goodness is… that conclusion just isn’t warranted and has the evidence of good works existing outside of the church against it (for if only those who know God through Christianity are able to do good, why is it that many non-believers do good things such as selflessness, charity, honor, patience, tolerance, mercy, justice, etc?)

Thanks for your reply. More questions for you -- simply because a man knows to do good and yet he is not a believer is evidence of God's stamp on mankind as a whole. Therefore it's totally possible for man to do good works outside a relational knowledge of God. As you pointed out we see that in our world and outside the church. But, again, it's clearly emphasized in Rom. 1-3 that the good man does is because of the law God placed within their hearts. So apart from God -- who is the epitome of good, the originator of good -- how could man know to do good in and of himself?

I’ve heard Calvinists say this, but it absolutely makes no sense. If what you say is true, the non-believer who saves an elderly nun from a speeding car by pushing her out of the way and, in the processes, gets hit himself and dies will have that selfless act counted against him on the day of judgment? Such an assertion is simply irrational. Such a God punishes people for doing good and I will never ally myself with such a being.

The way it makes sense is to see it as God's justice. Obviously God cannot let everybody into heaven. That would not be just. Someone who does good but never recognizes the origin of that knowledge is punished ultimately for rejecting God, not for saving a nun. In this way, God is just in His punishments. He placed the law in the hearts of all to make all seek for Him. Paul's arguement in Romans 1 is that even creation should speak to the mind of man to the fact that there is a God.

This presumes that man not only knows right from wrong but freely chooses to do wrong. If man cannot possibly do good of his own accord (without God making him do it), then he cannot be held responsible for not doing good

.

Again, God's justice comes to all who fail in this life to recognize the knowledge of God's image that is indelibly imprinted on his life and then seeking after the giver of that knowledge. "For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified."

Go Cards!

 

[PujolsisbetterthanBonds]

I don’t see how, but okay.




It wouldn’t be “favoritism” per se, but would make salvation rather arbitrary. Those who happened, by chance, not to hear of the gospel get a free ride. That’s why, in my response, I described the choice of these individuals as still being essential to their salvation or damnation.



You’re quite right – that’s why I don’t promote that idea. I never said that ignorance will save anyone, only that everyone will be given a fair opportunity at salvation.



Quite right. Yet this truth leads to another conclusion: that people are capable of choosing between good and evil, whether they are in the church or not. If people had no idea what good and evil were, they could not be held morally accountable in doing one or the other. Jesus clearly believed that ignorance of good and evil excused bad actions (cf. John 9:41, Luke 23:34).

It appears that we're debating from the same side and we're not really that far apart. Perhaps more info is needed on your position. Tell me again what your position is on salvation so that I won't have to reread every response in this thread. Give it to me in a nutshell.

 

[Dmckay]

I’m a theology major with a philosophy minor (and a management minor) at a Christian University, so your hopes are quite satisfied.

As a teacher of Biblical Theology for many years on both a Bible College and Seminary level for many years, I have to say that from your posts I don't think that you would meet the requirements for graduation if you had been a student at any of the Schools that I have taught at. You don't exhibit even a rudimentary understanding of the nature and attributes of G-d that would be a 100 level class in most schools.

 

[Jedi]

More questions for you -- simply because a man knows to do good and yet he is not a believer is evidence of God's stamp on mankind as a whole. Therefore it's totally possible for man to do good works outside a relational knowledge of God.

Much agreed.

As you pointed out we see that in our world and outside the church. But, again, it's clearly emphasized in Rom. 1-3 that the good man does is because of the law God placed within their hearts. So apart from God -- who is the epitome of good, the originator of good -- how could man know to do good in and of himself?

I think you and I are on the same page here but should qualify what we mean by saying “apart from God.” Apart from God, no doubt, man would not have the ability to do anything at all – it is God that has given the ability to think, reason, choose, understand, etc. to man. If not for God, man would not even be here. What I mean to say is that man can do good and/or choose good apart from a relationship with God, that is to say the lost can still do good and understand what it is.

Someone who does good but never recognizes the origin of that knowledge is punished ultimately for rejecting God, not for saving a nun.

Ah, so it is not their good works that God is holding against them but their lack of recognition of the source of goodness. I believe, once again, we’re in accord here. God is just in sending away those who reject Him (thus God gives them exactly what they want: to be left to themselves).

He placed the law in the hearts of all to make all seek for Him. Paul's arguement in Romans 1 is that even creation should speak to the mind of man to the fact that there is a God.

Quite right, but Paul here speaks of general revelation of God – not the specific revelation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross necessary for salvation. Thus people could still very well claim, “I didn’t know about Christ.” It is these people whose fates are somewhat murky. Does God Himself lay out the facts for them at judgment so they can make a choice and have the same opportunity given to those born in Christian-friendly environments? I do not know how God will deal with those who have not received the specific revelation, but there’s no doubt that all justice and mercy will be done in the end and everyone will be given the same opportunity to choose or reject God’s ways once and for all.

It appears that we're debating from the same side and we're not really that far apart.

Well said.

Tell me again what your position is on salvation so that I won't have to reread every response in this thread. Give it to me in a nutshell.

In a nutshell, God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11) and is not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Based upon these two aspects of God’s nature, it follows that God will save as many people as possible. The truth remains, however, that not all are saved. If this is so, then God must not be able to save those that end up lost, but this is no limitation of God’s power. He has given men the freedom to either choose God and His ways or choose to do things their own way and be left to themselves. Since God cannot force free creatures to choose one way or the other, there are those who reject God whom God cannot possibly save (since free creatures cannot be forced, lest they cease to be free). So, in a nutshell, that’s my soteriology.

As a teacher of Biblical Theology for many years on both a Bible College and Seminary level for many years, I have to say that from your posts I don't think that you would meet the requirements for graduation if you had been a student at any of the Schools that I have taught at. You don't exhibit even a rudimentary understanding of the nature and attributes of G-d that would be a 100 level class in most schools.

Considering my I.Q. is 129 (average is 100), I maintain A’s and B’s at a University that listed in the top 100 Universities in America (Hardin-Simmons University), have been asked to preach (and have preached) in churches from New Jersey to Texas, I’d say your flame toward me is lacking some serious basis. Further still, your condescending attitude leads me to believe you are either (a) a very poor professor or (b) not a professor at all. Sorry, please try again.

 

[BigNorsk]

Lutherens therefore misunderstand what a "work" is.

There is nothing you can do to earn salvation, that's a granted.

But it is still up to you to accept that gift of salvation, so it is therefore something to have to do to recieve it, but not [/i]earn[/i] it.

Think of it like this.

I give a Present to a random stranger. This gift is free to him, he hasn't earned it and as far as he's concerned, he doesn't deserve it either. It is still up to him to either accept my gift, or reject it.

He could then accept it, and I give it to him. It's then his to keep. But due to his free will, it's also up to him whether he decides to give it back or not. Even after he's accepted my gift, he is still entitled to return it.

Now, think of it like God.

God (in this analogy, me) has this free gift of salvation infront of mankind (the stranger) all the time.

We have done absolutely nothing to earn this gift of salvation, but God has it under our noses to either accept it or reject it. If we choose to reject it, he still keeps it there for us to turn back to him and accept it.

When we accept it, we have to have faith in order to accept it, so you do have to do something - which is have faith

"For we are saved by grace, through faith"

But then, if we have the choice to either accept it or reject it the first time, who's not to say we have the choice after we've accepted it to give it back again?

We either have free will, or we don't.

Man clearly doesn't have free will. The term free will was really defined by Martin Luther, I would suggest reading his writing Bondage of the Will. He makes a pretty clear case that you indeed do not have free will.

As for your assertion that man can accept the gift of salvation, that would require free will and a nature that a person dead in his sins does not have.

I would refer you to the Formula of Concord for an indepth explanation with biblical proofs. It again is a section on "Free Will" and absolutely denies that the nonregenerate man has such a thing. I know it seems just ever so logical to assume that man has such a thing as free will but I assure you he does not. Sure he can do many things freely, things like obey laws, try to be a good person and so on, but he cannot change his nature, and so, by definition, lacks free will.

Marv

 

[S Walch]

I hereby disagree with the Lutheren belief that man has no free will.

No matter who you quote for me to read.

 

[Jedi]

Man clearly doesn't have free will.

I'm afraid I've demonstrated here how clearly man does have free will if any moral praise or condemnation is to make any sense at all. If man cannot possibly respond to God, how can he be justly condemned for not doing so? You might as well condemn a Lego man for not singing your praises or commend him for smiling: in each case, he could have done nothing else.

 

[frumanchu]

Ah, yes, the appeal to the justice and wrath of God. Typical calvinistic responses. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because God didn't care enough to save them, but because their hearts were so turned against God that they wouldn't have life any other way than themselves - He couldn't save them.

"23And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." - Matt 11:23 (ESV)


Try again, friend.

 

[frumanchu]

This notion is far too presumptuous. Until scripture says that God sends people to hell simply because they haven't heard of Him, I see no reason to believe He does. God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11) and is not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentence (2 Peter 3:9). Based upon these two aspects of the nature of God, it follows that everyone will be given a fair opportunity at salvation. How is left a mystery (perhaps all the facts are laid out for those who have never heard while before God at judgment?). It seems rather irrational to give people a choice and set the default to hell if they don't choose or honor their choice if they're making a decision based solely on bad information and would not have made that same choice had accurate information been available to them.

Since you've several times over cited these two verses as the cornerstones of your objection to Calvinism in this thread, let's examine them a bit.

"11For God shows no partiality." Rom 2:11 (ESV)

What is the "for" for?

"9There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek." Rom 2:9-10 (ESV)

God shows no partiality...between Jew and Greek (that is, between Israel and all other men). Partiality in what context? If we take a very strict approach, Paul contradicts himself, since God clearly shows partiality to those who do good (v10) over those who do evil (v9). What is the difference between Jew and Greek? The Jews were God's chosen people. Yet in judgement, God shows no partiality between the Jews and the Gentiles. All alike are condemned (which is precisely what Paul proceeds to explain starting in v 12).

You cannot say that God simply shows no partiality of any kind as Scripture is replete with examples of Him doing so. You are pulling this verse out if its context to support your presupposition.


"9The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. " 2 Peter 3:9 (ESV)

Not wishing that any should perish. Not wishing that any of who should perish? Not wishing that any of you should perish. See...it doesn't say "The Lord is patient toward all men, not wishing that any man should perish..."

Again, using faulty hermaneutics you are making a verse say something it does not say.

I have a question for you: how do you define "free will?" Would you define it as the ability to choose what one desires from the options available to him?