tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post6916712885101485290..comments2023-10-29T07:41:51.540-07:00Comments on Stranger in a Strange Land: A QUESTION ABOUT CALVINISMstranger.strange.landhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-13596653162801791182010-07-24T22:55:49.050-07:002010-07-24T22:55:49.050-07:00Craig,
I apologize for taking so long to get back...Craig,<br /><br />I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I have been commenting on my blog and on AC, and I realize that it's been a while since your comment. <br /><br />And you've been busy writing new posts. Good for you! I'm going to be doing one on hell soon (I've been researching it a lot--cheery topic, huh?), which may be related to the discussion in your newest post. <br /><br />Photosynthesis,<br /><br />Okay. Let me know if you want to discuss it some other time.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-23396088516070792422010-07-20T13:43:29.009-07:002010-07-20T13:43:29.009-07:00Hey Anette,
I think this exchange on evolution an...Hey Anette,<br /><br />I think this exchange on evolution and constraints or no constraints or semi-constrains, or human-nohuman, could take some time, which I don't have right now. But will be glad to come back to that some other time.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-24886251384005368602010-07-20T13:41:43.634-07:002010-07-20T13:41:43.634-07:00Shutterbug,
... Words, words, and more words ...
...Shutterbug,<br /><br /><i>... Words, words, and more words ...</i><br /><br />yeah, my tendency to try and save time.<br /><br />:-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-44515616431076858162010-07-20T13:40:09.438-07:002010-07-20T13:40:09.438-07:00Craig,
of course we are old friends. No question....Craig,<br /><br />of course we are old friends. No question. You can disagree with me on many fronts, take offense at a thing or two, and that does not change the friendship. Just as I know how offensive I could be if let to talk plainly and clearly, as I often do, yet you keep your calm.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-33157589235295393202010-07-19T12:02:16.415-07:002010-07-19T12:02:16.415-07:00Thanks, Anette.
I feel your frustration because t...Thanks, Anette.<br /><br />I feel your frustration because that is where I was some sixteen years ago. The whole pictue quickly started to come into focus one afternoon, when I heard a young man named Michael Horton being interviewed on the radio, and talking about the subject of his book, <i>Putting Amazing Back Into Grace.</i> <br /><br />The book covered the Doctrines of Grace and the Five (plus one:) Solas of the Reformation. Really, it was a primer about who does what in salvation, and the "priesthood of all believers."<br /><br />Two things impressed me as I listened to him calmly explain the basics of the Reformed Faith: First, I had NEVER heard it explained that way before. Second, I recognized that what Horton was saying was just what the scriptures were saying.<br /><br />I had heard about the Reformed vs Arminian controversy, but figured that some people were just carrying on a 500 year old debate that no longer had any real significance in this day. <br /><br />About that time, I had also started reading the Heidelberg Catechism's "Lord's Day's" with my family, as a weekend devotional. (I found it in our church's book of doctrinal statements, but it was rarely used.) <br /><br />It was a few years later that I first laid eyes on the "Three Forms of Unity" which included the Canons of Dort. After reading the Canons, I felt like I had been seriously short-changed by the "shorthand" TULIP, and books expositing the five points are no substitute for reading the Heidelberg, Belgic, and Dort themselves with the supporting Scriptures. <br /><br />By the way, did you know that the I and T are combined in a single chapter in the document? It is called "Man's corruption, Conversion and the Manner Thereof." <br /><br />Another little thing you might be interested in is that Calvinism teaches that the elect can, and often do, resist the Holy Spirit, but only up to a point, and not "Fully" and never "Finally."<br /><br />As I think about it, something that I had correctly understood about Calvinism which I initially resisted, was the teaching of the absolute sovereignty and holiness of God, and the extent of my own sinfulness. After having come to terms with the fact that it wasn't Calvinism that I had been resisting, but the Word of God itself, I soon was overwhelmed with the sense of God's love for me. I couldn't get over the wonder of it, and I still can't.<br /><br />On my Blogger profile, my "about me" is my personal adaptation of the first question in the Heidelberg. I didn't choose it just to have something "theological," but because I believe that everything it says really does apply to me personally.<br /><br />In Christ's care,<br /><br />Craig<br /><br />p.s. (Those Hypers can only give the appearance of being logical if they leave out the part about the love and gratitude the Holy Spirit evokes in us as we contemplate our lovely Jesus Christ, all that he is and has done for us. "Why do anything?" Because the Beloved desires it of us.)stranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-29595623227483501402010-07-19T08:28:27.289-07:002010-07-19T08:28:27.289-07:00Photosynthesis,
I am planning on teaching a speci...Photosynthesis,<br /><br /><i>I am planning on teaching a special course on evolution for the best among the undergrad students. All based on original work, rather than the textbook thing.</i><br /><br />Very cool! I have a question about it that is somewhat related to determinism and free will (but I don't want to take this discussion off topic). <br /><br />I'm reading a book called <i>Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose</i> by Denis Alexander, and in it he argues that in the past decade evolutionary biologists have learned that natural selection appears to be highly constrained.<br /><br />In other words, we are not a cosmic accident like Stephen Jay Gould believed. Gould thought that if we could wind back the tape and start over again the chances would be "vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the replay."<br /><br />Denis Alexander says the following:<br /><br /><i>It is intriguing to note that just as Christians have often utilized the disastrous god-of-the-gaps type arguments, as already discussed, seeking to place their argument for God in the present gaps of our scientific knowledge, so it is possible that here we have an 'atheism-of-the-gaps' type of argument in which atheists seek to support their disbelief in God based on interpretations of scientific data which appear initially plausible due to lack of knowledge about the data, but appear less believable as our understanding of the process--in this case the evolutionary process--becomes more complete.<br /><br />To my mind the most recent findings from evolutionary biology are more consistent with the plan-like theistic account that the Bible reveals to us, than with an atheistic account in which the existence of such an ordered, constrained, directional history of life must always remain anomalous. There seems to be a biological anthropic principle that is parallel to the anthropic principle in physics pointing to the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe that are just right for life to exist. In biology it is beginning to look as if the whole system is set up in such a highly organised way that the emergence of intelligent life was inevitable.</i><br /><br />Again, I don't want to take this off topic. If you want, we can discuss it elsewhere, but I'm interested in your thoughts.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-44839651205875165672010-07-19T08:14:42.795-07:002010-07-19T08:14:42.795-07:00Craig,
These Reformed confessions, without except...Craig,<br /><br /><i>These Reformed confessions, without exception, state unequivocally that the Holy Spirit brings people to faith in Christ through the preaching of the gospel. To claim that "it is stupid to preach" the gospel, and to "get very angry at those who preach" shows that one is definitely NOT a Calvinist. Not a branch - not even a twig.</i><br /><br />I guess the problem I have with Calvinism as a concept is that it is impossible to pin down. If I think I've managed to do so, it morphs into something else. <br /><br />Calvinists have chosen to define themselves in a shorthand way by TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints). <br /><br />People generally understand this to mean that God has already decided whom to save and whom not to save. And if He has picked me, I cannot resist His grace no matter what. If He has not picked me, I am totally depraved, so I <i>cannot</i> but resist His grace. <br /><br />If everything happens according to God's will by default, the hyper-Calvinists are just being logical. Why do anything if God's will will be done anyway?<br /><br />John Piper's book <i>Future Grace</i> is an excellent one, and I highly recommend it. But in it he keeps essentially telling us not to resist God's grace. So I was really confused, because if grace is irresistible and I'm one of the elect, I <i>cannot</i> resist it. Why bother telling me not to do something I can't do anyway?<br /><br />But if I'm <i>not</i> one of the elect, there is not point in telling me not to resist God's grace because I <i>have to</i> resist it. It's an either/or proposition.<br /><br />So we've got the elect on the one hand and the non-elect on the other hand. Who's left? Nobody. There was no point in Piper writing the book, since he has no target audience. I believe this is the logic of hyper-Calvinists, and it makes sense to me. (But I'm no kind of Calvinist, so I certainly don't agree with the hyper-Calvinists' interpretation of Scripture.) As I said before, I agree with the notion that Spirit-filled teaching and prayer leads to faith. However, I do very much believe that it is possible to resist grace. The "I" part of TULIP is the one I most vehemently disagree with.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-60929836970189063372010-07-19T07:49:52.696-07:002010-07-19T07:49:52.696-07:00Hey G.E.
Sorry if I mistook your intentions. You ...Hey G.E.<br /><br />Sorry if I mistook your intentions. You did say something about your "messing the current thread," and I thought I detected in that comment to Shutterbug an attitude that reflected that. Apparently, she thought that, too. <br /><br />No, I am not going to make you an offender for not exactly phrasing your words in a way that would be clearly understood, nor am I saying "don't teach."<br /><br />Everything cool??<br /><br />Your old friend (about two years now, right?),<br /><br />Craigstranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-58601934692727926912010-07-19T06:55:35.314-07:002010-07-19T06:55:35.314-07:00G.E.: [T]here is more than one branch of Calvinism...G.E.: <i>[T]here is more than one branch of Calvinism. At least one of them <b>think it is stupid, and offensive, to preach because the gospel is available everywhere</b>, and their god made his celestial mind from the very beginning (omniscient, remember?). Some <b>get very angry at those who preach for trying to help the omnipotent and omnisovereign</b>. Who are they to try and move the sovereign into saving someone else?</i><br /><br />Craig: <i>There is “a branch of Calvinism” like the one you’ve described? That one must’ve sneaked past me when I wasn’t looking<b>: )</b></i><br /><br />G.E.: <i>I am surprised that you don't see the differences among Calvinists. You are a prime example of such different levels of depth into their horrifying doctrines.</i><br /><br />Anette: <i>I think photosynthesis is right about this. I believe he's talking about hyper-Calvinism.</i><br /><br />Thanks G.E. and Anette.<br /><br />I do, in fact, see that there are indeed differences among Calvinists, and that there ARE different "branches of Calvinism." "Reformed," "Presbyterian," and "Reformed Baptist" are just three examples.<br /><br />I am also very much aware of "hyper-Calvinists." They can not properly be considered a branch of Calvinism precisely because of their negative stand on preaching the gospel. <br /><br />The Reformation was all about recovering the gospel of pure grace, a gospel that had been compromised by the established church. The Reformed churches wrote down in their public confessions (or "statements of faith") exactly what they believed the Bible taught, chiefly about the way God, through Christ, redeems sinners. <br /><br />These Reformed confessions, without exception, state unequivocally that the Holy Spirit brings people to faith in Christ through the preaching of the gospel. To claim that "it is stupid to preach" the gospel, and to "get very angry at those who preach" shows that one is definitely NOT a Calvinist. Not a branch - not even a twig.stranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-59728723813645764272010-07-18T17:28:24.384-07:002010-07-18T17:28:24.384-07:00No problem G.E.
When I was in school, or any plac...No problem G.E.<br /><br />When I was in school, or any place for that matter, I have always hated someone asking a question expecting a specific answer because what I answer may not be the expected answer.<br /><br />If you want to ask me a question, being specific in it makes it much clearer to me. Thinking you are "leading" me to something by words, words, and more words only confuses my tiny brain. :)Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592429266252545353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-21561223609730739412010-07-17T21:55:17.469-07:002010-07-17T21:55:17.469-07:00Shutterbug,
But you did understand where I was go...Shutterbug,<br /><br />But you did understand where I was going. I was trying very hard to get you to say that morals don't come out of the blue to your god. You did say it in the confusion, more than once.<br /><br />Again, I take note that I should have been much more explicit in my way of asking. If it was all mumbo jumbo to you, then fine. I stop it too.<br /><br />But I was understanding you perfectly.<br /><br />Also note that I had no intention of driving you away from your faith. My point alone was about showing you that there is something about morals that is not dependent on there being a god out there.<br /><br />Since you say I failed, so be it. I have no intent of trying further unless there is a new discussion about ethics/morals.<br /><br />Sorry I was so confusing.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-85940266943533159532010-07-17T20:49:01.756-07:002010-07-17T20:49:01.756-07:00Photosynthesis said...
P.S. I am still surprised t...<b>Photosynthesis said...<br />P.S. I am still surprised that now it is wrong to teach, and that my teaching Shutterbug something and she learning it would mean Jesus is not her master.</b><br /><br />Please take this in the spirit it is written, which is kind and simple...I had no idea I was being taught anything by you. I didn't learn anything and your words were mumbo jumbo to me. <br /><br />I did not understand most of what you said to me...and I never understood why you kept saying that "I was getting it". Getting what?<br /><br />I am willing to discuss most topics and even be taught and try to learn new things but my learning anything from you or anyone else never means Jesus is not my Lord and Master. <br /><br />I honestly tried to understand the things you were saying but it made no sense to me - which is why I said words, words, and more words. Maybe you need to try drawing me pictures next time. :)<br /><br />BTW, I didn't just leave the discussion. I had no more to say on the subject of morals because I'm not going to go round and round with my beliefs vs yours - or those of anyone else's. You have your ideas and I have mine and I could see early on that you were not going to listen to me. <br /><br />My faith and beliefs are really very simple. :)<br /><br /><br /><b>...Jesus can be your master and you could still learn something from a person. Right?</b><br /><br /><br />Again, I agree. Otherwise one has a closed mind.Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592429266252545353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-23884828727960100132010-07-17T09:15:06.667-07:002010-07-17T09:15:06.667-07:00Craig,
I am surprised that you don't see the ...Craig,<br /><br />I am surprised that you don't see the differences among Calvinists. You are a prime example of such different levels of depth into their horrifying doctrines.<br /><br />Look at Penn. He is a "better" Calvinist than you in that he, as most of those I have met, gets all self-righteous when confronted by the likes of me. For others (well, maybe also for Penn, but I am not sure yet), we are but despicable maggots who hate his god (because we "know" this god exists). We don't deserve anything but mockery because we deny their god in unrighteousness. Nobody is innocent.<br /><br />Come on. Calvin himself promoted the burning of witches (talk about the fruits of the spirit).<br /><br />Anette is right. There is such a branch as hyper-Calvinism. But there are all kinds of levels, from my own experience.<br /><br />Worse yet, some are YECs, some are OECs. Even among the hypers.<br /><br />So, there.<br /><br />G.E.<br /><br />P.S. I am still surprised that now it is wrong to teach, and that my teaching Shutterbug something and she learning it would mean Jesus is not her master. That is beyond nonsensical. I see no relation. Jesus can be your master and you could still learn something from a person. Right? Otherwise why are you trying to explain things to me? If I learn from you then what? Are you playing Jesus' role? I truly don't get it. I don't get how that can be offensive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-91645327466655172202010-07-17T09:04:48.125-07:002010-07-17T09:04:48.125-07:00Hey Anette,
Whenever I am not trying to get Chris...Hey Anette,<br /><br />Whenever I am not trying to get Christians away from their god I teach genetics and some derivatives thereof (like genomics).<br /><br />I am planning on teaching a special course on evolution for the best among the undergrad students. All based on original work, rather than the textbook thing.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-73388072475440486342010-07-17T06:33:14.067-07:002010-07-17T06:33:14.067-07:00"[T]here is more than one branch of Calvinism...<i>"[T]here is more than one branch of Calvinism. At least one of them think it is stupid, and offensive, to preach because the gospel is available everywhere, and their god made his celestial mind from the very beginning (omniscient, remember?). Some get very angry at those who preach for trying to help the omnipotent and omnisovereign. Who are they to try and move the sovereign into saving someone else?"<br /><br />There is “a branch of Calvinism” like the one you’ve described? That one must’ve sneaked past me when I wasn’t looking: )</i><br /><br />I think photosynthesis is right about this. I believe he's talking about hyper-Calvinism. Charles Spurgeon said the following about so-called hyper-Calvinists:<br /><br />"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I think not. 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 Ghost 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 Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men,’ and unquestionably he means all men. 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. ... 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." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 26: 49-52)<br /><br />Although, even though Spurgeon refers to that as hyper-Calvinism (generally a negative term to regular Calvinists), I believe that James White and John Piper read into the word "all" something other than all in order to fit their theology. I used to love reading Piper's blog, until he did that (and until I found out that he thought God predestined people to eternal torture--that turned my stomach badly and I couldn't look at anything he said in the same way).Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-54044940992892779842010-07-17T01:47:07.929-07:002010-07-17T01:47:07.929-07:00[T]here is more than one branch of Calvinism. At l...<i>[T]here is more than one branch of Calvinism. At least one of them think it is stupid, and offensive, to preach because the gospel is available everywhere, and their god made his celestial mind from the very beginning (omniscient, remember?). Some get very angry at those who preach for trying to help the omnipotent and omnisovereign. Who are they to try and move the sovereign into saving someone else?</i><br /><br />There is “a branch of Calvinism” like the one you’ve described? That one must’ve sneaked past me when I wasn’t looking<b>: )</b><br /><br />But since you brought up Calvinism and preaching, let me share some snippets from our confessions on that very topic: <br /><br />The Reformed confess that one of the marks by which the true church is to be recognized is that: <b>”it practices the pure preaching of the gospel.”</b> (Belgic Confession, article 29)<br /><br />The Canons of Dort, the document from which we get the “Five Points of Calvinism,” says that:<br /><br /><i> the promise of the Gospel, and the command to repent and believe, “ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.</i> (Head 2, art. 5)<br /><br />And: that the preaching of the Gospel is <i>“the means by which it has pleased God to save such as believe…”</i> (Head 3/4, art. 6)<br /><br />And: <i>As many as are called by the Gospel are sincerely called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come to Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.</i> (Head 3/4, art. 8)stranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-48669808069495900792010-07-17T01:32:48.058-07:002010-07-17T01:32:48.058-07:00Anette: "Of course God knows who is ultimatel...<i>Anette: "Of course God knows who is ultimately going to be saved, and He has known that from the beginning of time, but my specific question is whether my prayers (or their absence) will, according to Calvinism, make an actual difference in terms of who will be saved?"<br /><br />Craig: "Who will be saved" is a matter of God's sovereign choice, based on "the good pleasure of His will":<br /><br />Anette: Just to make sure that I understand you correctly, Craig, are you saying that the outcome (in terms of whether or not someone is saved) will be the same regardless of whether or not I pray? <br /><br />If so, how do you square this with 1 Timothy 2:4?</i><br /><br />Hi Anette.<br /><br />I appreciate your very thoughtful comments on the blog today. Please keep in mind that I have, to the best of my ability, been trying to accurately represent the Reformed understanding, of what the Bible teaches on these issues. You did ask me if I would answer your question(s) "about Calvinism," and that is what I agreed to try to do.<br /><br />I should also add that the Reformed churches' public confessions (in this case the Belgic, Heidelberg, Dordt, and Westminster standards) do not presume to contain all there is about salvation, but merely summarize in a logical order the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. I am sure that there are aspects of Christ's redemptive love that will boggle our minds when they are finally shown to us, things which our "eyes have not seen nor our ears heard."<br /><br /> "[A]re you saying that the outcome (in terms of whether or not someone is saved) will be the same regardless of whether or not I pray?"<br /><br />We believe that, according to the Bible, before creation God selected those whom He would redeem, justify, sanctify, and glorify in Jesus Christ. (Rom 8:28-39; Eph 1:3-14; 2 Thess 2:13,14; 2 Tim 1:9, 10) <br /><br />We also believe that God ordered all the events that would serve as means to that end, including people praying for salvation. So, do your prayers "make a difference?" They don't and can't change God's mind about something that He has sovereignly and unchangeably decreed from all eternity, but He has graciously chosen to use you and your praying as part of the process of bringing an elect person to saving faith.<br /><br />In Christ's care.<br /><br />Craig<br /><br />(I have an early morning start, and a late night at work tomorrow, ...oh, it's today, but will check back here when I can:)stranger.strange.landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095085549321636456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-2019413972377260862010-07-16T20:06:45.673-07:002010-07-16T20:06:45.673-07:00Shutterbug,
Thus universal salvation is not the d...Shutterbug,<br /><br /><i>Thus universal salvation is not the determinative will of God. Instead, I believe what Paul is saying here is that God extends the offer of salvation to all. Christ died for the sins of all, but only those who believe receive the benefits of that sacrifice.(John 3:16)</i><br /><br />I do not believe in universalism either. However, I do believe that it is God's <i>will</i> that all be saved (even though it will not happen), and I'm comfortable with using that word for the following reason: In the Lord's Prayer, we are asked to pray, "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." In other words, we are to pray that God's will is done. Why would we pray this if God's will already happens by default? And if God's will <i>already</i> happened on earth as it is in heaven, there would be no sin or evil, because there is no sin or evil in heaven.<br /><br />Therefore, Spirit-filled preaching and prayer is the means by which God fulfills His perfect will on earth. In fact, John MacArthur, a Calvinist, said the following:<br /><br />"Now this may sound heretical but in this context, people, [tragedy] is not God’s will. That is the kind of stuff that Jesus came into the world to stop. Because "God is not willing that any should perish." And believe me--there are people perishing all over the place. God will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, and not all men do. God’s will is done in heaven, but it isn’t always done on earth."<br /><br />I agree with MacArthur, and this also explains why God can desire for all to be saved, even if not all are. It makes sense of the story Spurgeon tells about the praying lay brother. The human will (in terms of surrendering to God's grace) is also involved. This is illustrated by Revelation 3:20: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." He doesn't kick down the door of our hearts.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-26382367138419482882010-07-16T19:03:01.724-07:002010-07-16T19:03:01.724-07:00Only she (?! Didn't know she was a she), stopp...<i>Only she (?! Didn't know she was a she), stopped right when she got it.</i><br /><br />I don't think either of you need to worry about Shutterbug. She can obviously think for herself--like most women. No need for either frowning or shocked (she?!!) exclamations. ;)<br /><br />BTW, what do you teach when you're not trying to lead Christians to the Dark Side, photosynthesis?Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-78048704430596824662010-07-16T18:24:49.657-07:002010-07-16T18:24:49.657-07:00Anette,
Maybe you need to clarify what you mean. ...Anette,<br /><br />Maybe you need to clarify what you mean. This is where the contradictions are waved away. Shutterbug did not answer your question. Well, she did, but not the question you had in mind. If your god decided from the beginning, then there is no free-will (a tenet of Calvinism, at least of most of them), and thus, their god desiring all to be saved would be a contradiction.<br /><br />I agree with Shutterbug that desiring and willing is not the same. But desiring is still a contradiction because, just as Calvinists say that god has decided who is saved and who is not, if desired was correct, then this god could easily help us all believe.<br /><br />This is where another contradiction arises. According to Calvinists (maybe not all), we all know that this god exists (right). We just deny this truth (see frequent use of "for his whatever is clearly seen in whatever whatever"). Of course, why would we do this and what happens with this god having decided who gets saved by giving them the truth? Of course that we "know" this god to exist is pure and absolute crap. But that is just an aside.<br /><br />Calvinists has obvious contradictions, but they are incapable and strongly well-self-protected from questioning their overall belief. If something sounded awful, they shut it because they are nobody to question.understand the word of the all-powerful being. Thus, whatever, this god knows and we shut up.<br /><br />Anyway, I doubt I will come back anytime soon. Lots of work ahead.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-88120293922577850402010-07-16T18:16:01.223-07:002010-07-16T18:16:01.223-07:00Shutterbug,
I made it clear from the very beginni...Shutterbug,<br /><br />I made it clear from the very beginning that the questions had a "pedagogical" purpose. I clearly said I would guide you through questions. Remember that? So, no cards.<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-30530954406088833972010-07-16T18:08:50.145-07:002010-07-16T18:08:50.145-07:00Hey Craig,
What? Pedagogical card? Shutterbug was...Hey Craig,<br /><br />What? Pedagogical card? Shutterbug was learning something. Only she (?! Didn't know she was a she), stopped right when she got it. Just like every Christian who finally gets the first idea about the "morals" not coming out of the blue. They just stop.<br /><br />This is how I actually try and teach. Questions, questions, questions. But, I guess I never had a touch (despite my students saying otherwise). Shutterbug got the whole thing wrong more than once. I noticed my mistakes (the questions were not clear enough), until I got it, Shutterbug found the answer. Then stopped. Sad thing.<br /><br />So, don't frown. It was a very sincere exchange. I never "play cards." Truly, really. No tricks. My last name is not [unmentionable lest I go read that crap again].<br /><br />Sad to learn you took it wrong Shutterbug. I bet you left because you started to realize that you would find sources for morals that did not need a god. So, you infer my dark side, I infer yours. An eye for an eye. :-)<br /><br />G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-14559928081793499822010-07-16T09:45:05.192-07:002010-07-16T09:45:05.192-07:00Anette Acker said...
BTW, Craig, Penn, and Shutter...Anette Acker said...<br /><b>BTW, Craig, Penn, and Shutterbug, how do you incorporate 1 Timothy 2:4? Do you think God's will is always done or not?</b><br /><br /><br /><i>"who desires all men to be saved..."</i> does not mean that God has willed that everyone should be saved, for in other scripture Paul clearly teaches that only those who believe in Christ will receive salvation.<br />This is also the clear teaching of Jesus (John 3:15-18). <br /><br />Thus universal salvation is not the determinative will of God. Instead, I believe what Paul is saying here is that God extends the offer of salvation to all. Christ died for the sins of all, but only those who believe receive the benefits of that sacrifice.(John 3:16) <br /><br /><i>"...and to come to the knowledge of the truth."</i><br /><br />This refers to Christian growth after being saved. God's desire is not only our salvation (justification) but also our growth in the truth (sanctification), so that we will not be led astray by false teachers.<br /><br /><b>Is God's will always done?</b><br />In this context, His will and His desire are not the same thing...as I see it.Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592429266252545353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-65409466218744358132010-07-16T08:49:02.759-07:002010-07-16T08:49:02.759-07:00I consider myself neither a Calvinist nor an Armin...I consider myself neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian because they represent systems of theology that fail to incorporate everything the Bible says about salvation. I prefer to be able to modify my understanding of Scripture without the restraints of another fallible human's thoughts. (And this process will continue throughout my lifetime.) I think this is what Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13. "Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ.' Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"<br /><br />Ben Witherington said the following: <br /><br />"And all too often, the apparent intellectual coherency of a theological system is taken as absolute and compelling proof that this view of God, salvation,the world must be true and all others be heresy, to one degree or another. But it is perfectly possible to argue logically and coherency [sic] in a hermeneutical or theological circle with all parts connected, and unfortunately be dead wrong-- because one drew the circle much too small and left out all the inconvenient contrary evidence. This sort of fault is inevitable with theological systems constructed by finite human beings."Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4448540179796331975.post-28440098947467078202010-07-16T07:33:57.571-07:002010-07-16T07:33:57.571-07:00...Your playing the "pedagogical card" i...<b>...Your playing the "pedagogical card" in a comment to Shutterbug on the previous thread did produce a frown on my brow...</b><br /><br /><br />When I read his response in that other thread I just rolled my eyes and let it go, because...<br /><br /><b>I am confident that she regards Christ as her one Master(Matthew 23:8,10)</b><br /><br />You are exactly right Craig.Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592429266252545353noreply@blogger.com