ForHisGlory60
Active Member
Upvote
0
By that you mean your church? You have given absolutely nothing that would be any inducement to investigate it. if you are representing your church (which you are, knowingly or not), your attitude and snarkiness have given it a very negative impression. But then again, I don't think you care, do you? Smugness is not a fruit of the Spirit, last I checked. But then again,. what do I know? I'm just an "evil Calvinist", who must be put in his place.
This is a reason I find it hard to buy into the system. This seems to me an obvious attempt to simply declare, by fiat, that no contradiction exists.
This is where the arguments for Calvinism fall down on this board. Every argument against Calvinism is basically summed up in the question, "How is that Just?" And the Calvinists try to insist that it is, but it's not really possible to demonstrate 'eye for an eye' justice outside of free will.
But if Calvinists did say something along the line of:
Who could argue with that?We don't know. We define it as such because we believe that God has revealed both to be true, and we must hold them in tension.
The soteriology board would be empty in a week. lol
So for evil to exist there must be free will ?This is where the arguments for Calvinism fall down on this board. Every argument against Calvinism is basically summed up in the question, "How is that Just?" And the Calvinists try to insist that it is, but it's not really possible to demonstrate 'eye for an eye' justice outside of free will.
But if Calvinists did say something along the line of:
Who could argue with that?
The soteriology board would be empty in a week. lol
So for evil to exist there must be free will ?
No, for retributive justice to exist, the perpetrator who is punished must be demonstrably responsible for their own actions.
We don't put crazy people in the electric chair for a reason.
So endlessly punishing Joe Schmoe for sins that he had no choice but to commit is like punishing a cat for licking it's own fur. He cannot 'deserve' punishment any more than the cat that is likewise trapped in it's own nature.
I see what you're trying to say, but I think you missed my point. Many non-Calvinists have made a lot of hubub about free will, and how they believe that man must be willing in order to be saved, that "willing" being sourced in the man. The implication is that it would be some sort of travesty if God were to save a man without the man's permission (for lack of a better term), which totally misses the real point, which is in what way can salvation possibly be viewed as a negative, or bad thing? It's SALVATION for crying out loud! it's being saved from a certain fate of Hell!
Reminds me of the guy in The Incredibles, who sued the superheros for saving him when he didn't want to be saved
I see your point. From my perspective, God did act to save man, without man's permission, but not without "man's" cooperation. I'll probably butcher the expression of it, but it's something like this:
1. Man fell into sin, corruption, death and bondage to Satan of his own free will, choosing to exalt himself over God and try to be his own master. "God didn't really say you'll die...did he?"
2. God became incarnate to bridge the chasm between himself and his creation. This didn't just open the way to put things back the way they were, but it took it to a whole new level. In the garden, God "walked with man" as God. In Christ, God walked with man literally, physically, as both God and Man.
3. God did not take a survey and see how many fallen men wanted to be saved from death, before deciding he'd come along and save us. So in that sense he acted to save his creation from Satan and from its own foolishness without "permission." St. Athanasius uses the analogy of an earthly king who, seeing that his kingdom has been taken over by an enemy, rides out to conquer and take it back...not for the sake of his subjects, who've rebelled against him, but for the sake of his own name and honor and glory.
4. However, man's salvation was not entirely an act of divinity. The Incarnation changed everything. Did God go to the cross without man's cooperation? No. Because God was man. Every action of Christ was a perfect synergy of the divine and human, acting together. And, before the Incarnation happened, the angel came to Mary, who did choose (of her own will) to "let it be done to me as you have said." So even there, humanity was involved in God's saving activity. I think it's pointless to even ask "what if Mary had said no?" That would be silly speculation in search of an answer that can't be understood. But far more significant is that humanity was--and is, and forever will be--involved in absolutely every activity of God, because humanity is forever joined hypostatically to divinity.
Perhaps the whole idea is best captured in the Icon of the Resurrection, in which Adam and Even (representing humanity) are being raised up from their tombs by Christ--God restoring humanity without asking first-- while crushing Satan under his feet and breaking the bonds of sin that held man in Hades. All this, while the souls of the righteous Old Testament saints look to Christ as their liberator, they who "though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. Heb. 11:39"
So for evil to exist there must be free will ?
For man to actually commit sin, yes. This applies to both believers and unbelievers.
This is where the arguments for Calvinism fall down on this board. Every argument against Calvinism is basically summed up in the question, "How is that Just?" And the Calvinists try to insist that it is, but it's not really possible to demonstrate 'eye for an eye' justice outside of free will.
But if Calvinists did say something along the line of:
Who could argue with that?
The soteriology board would be empty in a week. lol
No I don't believe it is about justness as you say.
The bottom line is it is a mystery. To give a lot of theory ( for want of a better word) as in the Westminster Confessions posted previously, then bail out with the mystery card is what ensures Soteriology will not be empty.
If it is a mystery then stop there. But WCF for instance is the reverse. It also appears contradictory as hi-lighted in the previous posts.
Calvinist often say no one understands Calvinism. So explain it in simple terms.
BTW I am an Ignatius21 fan.
Ignatius21
That was my post quoted under Ignatius 21's name. Not sure whose response you want, but since you are an Ignatius 21 fan, I'll let him field it.No I don't believe it is about justness as you say.
The bottom line is it is a mystery. To give a lot of theory ( for want of a better word) as in the Westminster Confessions posted previously, then bail out with the mystery card is what ensures Soteriology will not be empty.
If it is a mystery then stop there. But WCF for instance is the reverse. It also appears contradictory as hi-lighted in the previous posts.
Calvinist often say no one understands Calvinism. So explain it in simple terms.
For man to actually commit sin, yes. This applies to both believers and unbelievers.
That is a good point.
A man must have free will to rebel and sin against God.
Adam had a free will and so do we.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?