http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
Replies
Kevin Yong said: I credit my salvation more to the mysterious sovereignty of God at work in me than I do in the absolute autonomy of my free choices...
I couldn't imagine any Christian arguing with that, Kevin, regardless of theological persuasion. And Rob, thanks for the mention of Theopedia; I'll have to give it a look.
Kind regards in Christ Jesus,
Alec
Good point Rob -- there is a lot to reconcile, and there are far more nuanced positions than just slapping a "Calvinist" or "Arminian" label on them. There's a wide spectrum within the Calvinist/Reformed views of election, just as there's a wide spectrum of views on free will ranging from traditional Arminianism to the questionable "Open God Theology" (in which God doesn't know the future because we create it by our free choices), or there's the theory of God's "middle knowledge" advocated by philosopher William Lane Craig (he believes all our choices are completely free, yet the future is foreknown with absolute certainty due to God's omniscience of all possible outcomes), and there's the very pragmatic Lutheran view (which admits to a theological mystery in that that God is absolutely sovereign, that Man has free will, and that they can't see how it can be fully reconciled from a human perspective.) And I'm probably overlooking a couple other nuanced options as well. Christians of good will can and do disagree on this.
Personally, I probably fall somewhere between the Calvinist and Lutheran views on this -- I credit my salvation more to the mysterious sovereignty of God at work in me than I do in the absolute autonomy of my free choices, yet I fully admit that the details of how it all might work is largely beyond my feeble human comprehension.
Matthew said:
Just wanted to point out that regardless of how the verses from Romans may apply to the abstract theological question of free will and predestination, I still don't see any Biblical justification offered for the Westboro groups tactics in particular. I just can't grasp the leap in logic required to get from traditional Reformed theology to picketing funerals with "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" signs.
Lee Weeks said:
Thanks Lee - I think you touch on a key point, that the free will/sovereign issue can often be a struggle to reconcile. I don't claim to be an expert, but there are certain struggles I see withboth sides of the argument. I also see how there can be extremes of "hyper-Calvinism" (to the exclusion of practicing evangelism) and likewise extremes of Arminianism (that again, seem to paint God's helplessness, wringing his hands in heaven and hoping that people will choose to come to faith.)
Calvary - thanks for keeping my spelling in line.... hehe. It's my own fault for letting the browser check my spelling for me and assuming the lack of a red-underline mean my spelling was kosher. BTW - I do NOT trust Wikipedia anymore for anything theological (or for most other topics, for that matter (The article currently seems to have something of a Weslean/Methodist flavor to it). For theological topics, I find Theopedia and a much more interesting - and objective - springboard.
Hi Rob,
You wrote:
To me, Armenianism really limits God's sovereignty and power.
That's right, whereas hyper - Calvinism makes God's gift of salvation an imposition on some, while having created others for the purpose of hating... which is not love at all. And, God tells us His very identity is love in 1 John (4:8, 16)
This is why I believe the answer to this issue is to just let the scripture speak for itself (God for Himself) and leave the inferences that cause us to go to the right or the left -- where we must bend certain scriptures, twisting them -- alone. There is no doubt tension that exists between God's sovereignty/predestination and man's free will. Nevertheless, the scriptures plainly teach both. Given that God is outside time -- and that He IS God, we must allow that He reconciles the two perfectly apart from our complete understanding (as He does with His triune nature).
We simply have no idea what it is to exist outside of time or in a number of dimensions that exceeds the temporal universe (the three plus time).
God IS sovereign. He is also bigger than any of our doctrinal boxes. If He wasn't then He wouldn't be God. When we have to make Him fit within those boxes, we pull Him from His throne and put ourselves there in His place.
We see all through scripture that there are two wills at work simultaneously. Joseph, in response to his brothers' repentance over selling him off and leaving him for dead, tells those same brothers that it was alright -- that what men (they) had intended for evil, God had meant for good to bring about the salvation of many (Gen 50:20). The one doesn't negate the other, but God is (incredibly) reconciling the two intentions in a single act.
And, of course, the most profound example of this dynamic is the cross; whereas in one garden, it was one bride (taken from the bridegroom's side) who took unlawfully from a tree of knowledge of good and evil, offering of this stolen fruit to the bridegroom, which caused all men to die and their expulsion from the garden (to keep them from the tree of life); years later it would be just outside another garden that the Bridegroom would put back on another tree in an ultimate act of righteousness the crushed fruit/wine of His blood, then offering of this crushed fruit to His bride (a bride who came forth in the blood and water that poured from His side), that "whosoever will" would gain eternal life. The cross -- where man commits the worst evil in the murder of Messiah, yet also the place of the greatest good ever done in God giving Himself freely -- a tree of "good and evil", and in His sacrifice, He becomes the Tree of Life to all who will believe on Him.
Again, the one does not negate the other -- two wills present -- God reconciling the two.
So, too, God is sovereign, yet man must choose...freely. I personally am comforted that this is too big for me to reconcile, yet all the while believing in my Heavenly Father's complete ability to reconcile them....perfectly.
God bless you, Rob.
In Messiah Jesus,
Lee
Rob, it's Arminian; the Republic of Armenia is a country bordering Turkey. Jacobus Arminius was a very godly man and a theologian. Jean Calvin, on the other hand, had 32 people burned at the stake for disagreeing with his theology after his alleged conversion. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but a born again Christian, a follower of Messiah Y'shua. I'm not sure that you've given an accurate portrayal of Arminian theology in your above post. I do know this about their position: they believe that one can lose his salvation after conversion, and they believe that once one falls away, it is impossible for him to be converted.
This wikipedia article gives a concise view of Arminianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism
Sven Jacobs said:
We are not trapped or predestined; God simply has superior knowledge.
Romans 8.30: "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
To Sven's point here, I will agree that the Armenian has a lot of tap-dancing to do to get around books like Romans 8.
To me, Armenianism really limits God's sovereignty and power. Consider for instance: you have an unsaved friend. A reformed Calvinist could pray that God would draw that person to salvation because he believes that God's will is sovereign. The Armenian, however, CANNOT pray for an unsaved friend, because man's will is sovereign, not God's. Think about it: what's the point of praying for someone when it's *their will* that's ultimately sovereign? The Armenian is basically left wringing his hands and, apparently, so is God. "I sure hope he chooses to be a Christian!"
I can't add much to this conversation, but there seems to be a couple of quotes in the bible that you keep coming back to. You seem to keep harping on the one single passage in Romans, and Jesus' parable of the Wedding Feast.
Let me say this: Jesus' story of the Wedding feast shows that there were a few (the Jews) who were shown Jesus' love and refused it, but this was their own choice. Then, the King (God), used his servants to call EVERYONE on the streets who would come. Again, this all comes down to choice. The choice of the rabble being invited to the party. Then, one of the rabble, a commoner, refuses to put on wedding clothes. His CHOICE gets him thrown out of the party, or presumably, into hell.
The parable, to fit with predestination, would have the King invite people in, but then refuse to let them pass should he decide that he arbitrarily hates them for no reason.
The parable's biblical meaning is clearly that he calls the rabble of this world. He calls any to his party that would like to come. His servants went out in the streets and collected whosoever wished to be at the wedding feast.
The message of the parable comes when someone REFUSES to accept this gift by throwing it back in the face of the king, insulting him by not wearing the wedding clothes.
This story is intrinsically about free will.
I am, however, always drawn back to the passage that refutes you outright. You sir, have to dig and search hard to find passages that support predestination, and the elect. You really have to do some serious interpretations to get to the conclusion you are coming to. The idea of free will, and God's grace for EVERYONE is not hard to find, however. It's blaring out of every passage of the gospels.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
I don't have to twist any passages of the bible, or do any amount of digging to support the idea of free will, to support the FACT that God is a loving God, and he loves ALL his creations.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continue to post one word "refutations" such as "False Dichotomy." You've stopped debating at all.
It seems to me YOUR heart is a little bit hard.
Sven Jacobs said:
Christ came for everyone or He came for no one.
False Dichotomy
Predestination negates not only Christ, but the Garden of Eden as well.
It, in fact, doesn't negate Christ or the Garden of Eden. See, I can make unsubstantiated and unexplained claims as well.
Predestination, taken to its logical conclusion, says God is either not omniscient/omnipotent or else is cruel & evil.
It doesn't.
Yeah, a lotta very bright scholars thot predestination was a good idea. They also thot the sun was the center of the universe, too.
My sources were not scientists; they were theologians.
Predestination made sense to them insofar as they lacked our understanding of physics, in particular quantum physics. The only way they could make sense of the Bible was to assume God created the world in such a way that some people by God's deliberate choice were destined for hell & some were destined for salvation & there was no free will involved.
Christ says that many are called while few are chosen. Christ says that the Father draws people to the Son, and that those who are drawn necessarily have eternal life for "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" and that "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6). Christ says that there are an elect people whom the Father has chosen (Mark 13:20). Paul says, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:30). It isn't that my theologians were incapable of understanding free will - the Greeks and Romans went on and on about fate and free will until everyone was quite sick of it - it is simply that my theologians can read. And again, I am not attempting to persuade men who are interested in your offhand and unexplored references to quantum mechanics and modern philosophy - I am interested solely and exclusively in those who believe that the Words of the Bible, particularly those Words in the Gospels, have legitimacy and truth to them.
We now know that we humans can have free will & yet at the same time God, being in simultaneous existence with past/present/future knows what the outcome of that free will is.
That is not Biblical. Again, in John 6, Jesus, after telling His new disciples some "hard sayings," they left Him, and He reiterated the point He made previously, specifically that "Because of this [His disciples leaving Him] I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.” Pharaoh was FITTED for destruction (Romans 9) - 'fitted' means Pharaoh was made for it; it does not mean Pharaoh was allowed to spin on the potter's wheel as Pharaoh willed.
In reformed theology, a man does not desire God until God works within Him. His nature is at "enmity with God." And it is only until God changes His nature - it is only until that man is born again - that he will even desire God. That is not reconcilable by saying God is outside space/time - because a man's transformation, a man's decision to accept Christ, REQUIRES a divine change in the affections of the individual. Without God's grace provoking the elect, the elect would not want God's grace. It isn't that the reprobate avoid God because they just haven't seen God from the right angle - they do not choose God entirely because they are ground that God has not cultivated, they are pots that have not been fitted for glory, they are goats (and what goat can become a sheep?). It isn't that I'm denying free will; I am denying that those without God's grace will freely choose Him, as I would deny that somebody with free will would freely choose eating a burger made out of turds for the rest of their life. Christ is not desirable to the wicked, He is not savory to the reprobate, because God has not changed their state of being.
Because He hates them.
We are not trapped or predestined; God simply has superior knowledge.
Romans 8.30: "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Amen, Alec.
From this morning's time in the Word with Tish ...
James 3:17-18 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
This comes at the end of a chapter which begins with a warning to those who would be teachers and about the power in the misuse of our tongues (man turns the entire body of a horse by the "bit" in his mouth).
Enjoy the couple extra days home, Alec.
Your brother in Messiah,
Lee
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
of 14 Next