God has put us here for a reason

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

.
For what it's worth, I think the issue of suffering is the most difficult question Christians have to engage with, in light of the things we have to say about God and his goodness etc. But I also think that Christianity gives the best answers to the reality of suffering in the world, and certainly better than anything an atheistic worldview has to offer.

The best answer depends on the root. Naturalistic Evolution is a pretty strong base on which to explain subsequent suffering. What is fit survives - and if that means on species comsuming another species in a 'horrible' way then so be it. Even if one of those species has a jumped up notion of its own importance and the other is a miniscule parasite.

I can't for the life if me imagine why your typical Western atheist (who believes in naturalistic evolution) has any issue with the fact of suffering. Its easy peasey in an abstract, intellectual-exercise sense.

The Christian answer is probably going to be more problematic, given God is a bit more complex a proposition to figure out than naturalistic evolution.

antiskeptic

realdanbreen wrote: »

Right,And your point is?

It is not appropriate to hold that Jesus arrived a comparative 'day before yesterday' when it may well turn out that he arrived at the comparative dawn of mankind.

We won't be able to tell until the fat lady sings on humankind. But every hundred years or so more takes a big step towards him occupying that position.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

The intervention is universal (the world over, all places and times. It is a non-determining force. This force is applied against the will which insists on self sufficiency. And this force can only be defeated by the will insisting on retaining self-sufficiency...This aspect of Reformed theology ignores the non-sense and doggedly insists that a very limited set of oblique, twice-removed from salvation references support the position.

God is certainly involved at all times and in all places. And yet, the idea runs through the bible that he is concerned about individuals, specifically. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" for example.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Something isn't open if the only way to respond requires God first spannering on you as a select individual so that you'll accept it. If he doesn't spanner on you, won't be able to accept it.

Open to you. But unless God acts in you specific case, there is no way for you to accept?

I think that's exactly the position we're in. If we really are dead in sins and transgressions, then we need God to intervene before we can respond. I'm no doctor, but dead people aren't usually very responsive

Another way of looking it is that we always do what we want to do. When dead in sins, we want to reject God and do so with gusto. When he brings us to new life, we follow our new desire to believe, praise, love etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see the scriptural case for God doing anything other than acting universally and non- determining. The scriptural support for his sovereign choice involved in this one and not that one's salvation is too weak: lack of quantity and what there is suffers from, like I say, glaring issues.

It's the same for the Arminians. They insist on man choosing for God (but not irresistably) but there isn't a single NT reference to support unbelieving man choosing for God. All the will references show unbelieving man willing against God, hating God.

This is very much a secondary issue. I think reformed theology does most justice to the totality of what the bible has to say about these things, but plenty of Christians disagree. As long as we recognise the depth of sin, the absolute necessity of faith in Jesus Christ to save us from it, and are committed to evangelism and discipleship, then ultimately, these differences don't really matter. This stuff is important, but other stuff is more important.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so I look for something that doesn't suffer 'paradox' (a.k.a. mystery, a.k.a good reason to be tentative in plumping for that theology as satisfactory). For something to be paradox, the reasoning leading to the apparent contradiction must be sound. Yet problems exist (such as the 'chose us in him' issue)

Honestly, I don't think we can avoid the paradox. Scripture proclaims both divine sovereignty and human responsibility to be true at the same time, and we need to make sense of that.

When I think back to my own conversion, I see the same paradox at play. I made decisions, freely, and yet recognise now that God was at work behind and above those decisions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question to help clarify. If all evangelism of every kind stopped this very day, if no more bibles were sent to countries without, if every church shut its doors .. would it alter the number of people saved from this day forth?

I don't think it would make a jot of a difference. Relational God (we Christians are elevated to sonship afterall) does work specifically. But he also works significantly through man. He includes man in the work of his kingdom come to earth as it is in heaven. He doesn't need to, he could supernaturally bring about his will - but he wants to work through us and does.

I would have to say no; God will call a people to himself and save them regardless of what we do. After all, he could raise up the very stones to worship him.

I find it staggering that we, Christians, are weaved into God's plan and purpose to grow his kingdom. Which is a fit place to end; whatever our theological musings on these things, if they lead us back to praise and worship then the fact that we disagree is pretty insignificant.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Call me old fashioned, but if I'm looking for a definition of what a commonly used English word means I initially reach for most widely used English dictionaries. If that definition is likely to change for a specific context, I then look to see if there is a more appropriate contextual definition. I've done both in this case and find all of the reasons why you and others here might not consider someone to be a 'real' Christian fail the general definition and most fail the contextual one.

If you're going to complain that the use of a term isn't definitive enough for you're liking, I'd suggest you start by providing a concise, universally accepted definition for that term.

Glad you've found an authoritative text on which to base your beliefs smacl, we're not so different as all that

But seriously, the first part of your definition is useful (one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ) as long as we can provide some definition for what "belief" and "the teachings of Jesus Christ" means. If they simply mean whatever we wish/feel/want them to mean, then we're back to the post modern mess.

realdanbreen

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is not appropriate to hold that Jesus arrived a comparative 'day before yesterday' when it may well turn out that he arrived at the comparative dawn of mankind.

We won't be able to tell until the fat lady sings on humankind. But every hundred years or so more takes a big step towards him occupying that position.

With all due respect that's the kind of talking in riddles that has led to most under40's walking away from religoing.

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

God is certainly involved at all times and in all places. And yet, the idea runs through the bible that he is concerned about individuals, specifically. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" for example.

Yet Jacob and Esau is nested in a chapter discussing lineage and the actuality of the line through which salvation comes. When God 'hates', it is referring to a line, not an individual.

Which is an aside: I agree he is concerned with individuals. The bit you quote starts out saying the offer is universal

I think that's exactly the position we're in. If we really are dead in sins and transgressions, then we need God to intervene before we can respond. I'm no doctor, but dead people aren't usually very responsive

Another way of looking it is that we always do what we want to do. When dead in sins, we want to reject God and do so with gusto. When he brings us to new life, we follow our new desire to believe, praise, love etc.

The issue is 'whether salvation open on equal terms to all'. Not whether God is active in our salvation (for he must be, as you say).

Does God spanner (act) on this one and not that one, apart from anything in the person (characteristics, acts, etc.) - such that the former are and the latter aren't saved?

If so, how open? For that was the question asked?

This is very much a secondary issue. I think reformed theology does most justice to the totality of what the bible has to say about these thing...

Let's get specific - the totality of the argument being too big a fish to fry. When it comes to Calvinism's core support there isn't much afterall (for I see the same few verses crop up again and again - proof positive of it's tenuous foundations)

Here's two of the biggies:



1. Chapter 9 Romans: deals (in the context of the book entire) with the objection to the apparent 'displacement' of physical Israel as God's actual chosen people. God's chosen people are spiritual Israel not, cue surprise, surprise, physical Israel. Spiritual circumcision vs physical circumcision et al. All over the place in the chapter..

The argument is: forget Jacob and Esau as a indication of how individual salvation (the topic if discussion) is wrought. The chapter has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanism of individual salvation.


2. For He chose us in him .. to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Us in him = Christians

In other words:

For He chose Christians to be holy amd blameless in his sight. He predestined Christians to this, that and the other.

The argument:

- God choses and predestines what is to happen to Christians. What is to happen to those who are saved. For things are applied to them.

There is no other reading of this verse that makes syntax sense. Are we to suppose that God chose us (particular unbelievers) to be in him (made believers)?. There is no 'to be' in the text however.


How does Calvinism deal with specifics?

, but plenty of Christians disagree. As long as we recognise the depth of sin, the absolute necessity of faith in Jesus Christ to save us from it, and are committed to evangelism and discipleship, then ultimately, these differences don't really matter. This stuff is important, but other stuff is more important.

If a person doesnt understand how salvation works, how can they evangelise? If you don't get to the root of the problem, how can you partake in it's solution?

The root is vital .. says Jesus.

Now I'm not dissing Hellfire & Damnation messagers at the GPO - I think God can use it. He turns all things towards the direction good - no matter the quality of the raw material provided him. Surely though, it matters what message we bring?

Honestly, I don't think we can avoid the paradox. Scripture proclaims both divine sovereignty

Where? In relation to individual salvation?

and human responsibility to be true at the same time, and we need to make sense of that.

But you can't. You stop at paradox. It's a mystery. The question was whether the required sound reasoning, required for the conclusion ' paradox', is sound.

If, for example, you are relying on a snippet from Romans 9, dealing as it does with physical nation vs spiritual nation, then unsound reasoning. And no paradox - just faulty think. Ditto 'chose us in him syntax nonsense.

When I think back to my own conversion, I see the same paradox at play. I made decisions, freely, and yet recognise now that God was at work behind and above those decisions.

God at work and own agency don't require Calvinst paradox. As outlined earlier. God 'at work' to save and man able to reject (agency) can go hand in hand neatly enough. Without the 'paradox' of God chosing (aside from anything in man) this one and not that one for salvation - yet man responsible (agency) for the fact God didn't chose him to be saved.


Just because something makes not a lick of sense doesn't make it a pardox. It can just be non-sensical.


Speaking of your conversion, a question for you. In the time prior to your conversion, prior to your eyes opening to God-things, were you at end of self. A thief on a cross, a leper, a disabled from birth man, a man with a dying child.

Were you, in short, in severe pain? It need not be dramatic - my wife was 11 years of age when she was converted. Her pain (conviction of an 11 year olds sin) might not have been as severe as someone who descended the sin path to its more bitter comclusions. But pain enough to turn. Appropriate pain for her - an early adopter.

For severe pain I hold, is the root a salvation. The 'engine room' so to speak.

antiskeptic

realdanbreen wrote: »

With all due respect that's the kind of talking in riddles that has led to most under 40's walking away from religoing.

More power to them. It was an utter crock.

Always Tired

The main teaching of Christ was simply to love your neighbour as yourself.

Unfortunately the Christian faith seems to attract a lot of people who wish to use as many bible passages as they can to condemn and judge others, and exclude as many as possible from God's love/heaven/the Christian faith. All these things that they of course, are able to enjoy, because THEY are the good Christian, the right kind, the ones followed every rule exactly.

I find these types, like the poster in this thread who says, oh well the bible says you can't be gay, so if you're gay just dont be a Christian, are so laughably far away from the main message of Christ I can't believe they don't see it.

But they don't see it because of their ego. Their ego that tells them that they are the ones who interpret the bible correctly, they are the righteous ones. They know it all.They remind me of that scene in the Simpsons when Lisa asks Rev. Lovejoy, "Doesn't the Bible say judge not, lest ye be judged?" And the Rev. replies, "Uhhh, I think that might be somewhere in the back."

Anyone who thinks they are a Christian but goes around condemning and telling others that they can't be one because you do this or that, really needs to look at themselves as that is not at all what the faith is about and by doing that crap you are at least as sinful as the person you are condemning.

And if there is a reason for us being here, I think it's pretty obvious we are being left to figure it out ourselves. I think personally it's just to experience life, nothing more or less. Just live, be. It's simple, but we complicate it. Loving each other is the best thing we can do, but we don't have to do anything, qe have free will to do whatever we choose so there is no one 'reason' to be here, we constantly choose the reason in each and every moment by our actions, words, thoughts and feelings.

theological

If we want to discuss the role of the Bible in the Christian faith that is a fantastic topic for a new thread. But it would be great to keep talking about why God put us here with the springboard of the passage in the OP

Widye

Homo sapiens sapiens are here for a variety of reasons. Our purpose is to survive and reproduce.

I don't believe in a deity of any kind or in the supernatural. I just can't.

There is evidence of intelligent design in nature but I don't think it was / is driven by a deity.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Glad you've found an authoritative text on which to base your beliefs smacl, we're not so different as all that

Not beliefs Chris, just the language we use to communicate with each other. These aren't my definitions, they're ours.

But seriously, the first part of your definition is useful (one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ) as long as we can provide some definition for what "belief" and "the teachings of Jesus Christ" means. If they simply mean whatever we wish/feel/want them to mean, then we're back to the post modern mess.

I think all parts of the definition are useful as they illustrate the breadth of reasonable use for the word Christian in common parlance. Each is as valid as the other.

As for belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, would you consider a Mormon who was sincere in his or her beliefs as yourself to be a Christian? As and atheist, I'd see very little difference in their beliefs and yours, which are based on the same historical figure of Jesus and for the large part the same sources.

I think yourself and Theological's understanding of what it means to be Christian is perfectly reasonable from your own points of view but also think it is a rather narrow and subjective one. As per Always Tired's post, I also find it divisive.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I think yourself and Theological's understanding of what it means to be Christian is perfectly reasonable from your own points of view but also think it is a rather narrow and subjective

For instance, was Abraham a Christian?

uck51js9zml2yt

Widye wrote: »

Homo sapiens sapiens are here for a variety of reasons. Our purpose is to survive and reproduce.

I don't believe in a deity of any kind or in the supernatural. I just can't.

There is evidence of intelligent design in nature but I don't think it was / is driven by a deity.

So what is it driven by? I'm interested in knowing what you think on this one.:)

ChrisJ84

Always Tired wrote: »

The main teaching of Christ was simply to love your neighbour as yourself.

Unfortunately the Christian faith seems to attract a lot of people who wish to use as many bible passages as they can to condemn and judge others, and exclude as many as possible from God's love/heaven/the Christian faith. All these things that they of course, are able to enjoy, because THEY are the good Christian, the right kind, the ones followed every rule exactly.

I find these types, like the poster in this thread who says, oh well the bible says you can't be gay, so if you're gay just dont be a Christian, are so laughably far away from the main message of Christ I can't believe they don't see it.

But they don't see it because of their ego. Their ego that tells them that they are the ones who interpret the bible correctly, they are the righteous ones. They know it all.They remind me of that scene in the Simpsons when Lisa asks Rev. Lovejoy, "Doesn't the Bible say judge not, lest ye be judged?" And the Rev. replies, "Uhhh, I think that might be somewhere in the back."

Anyone who thinks they are a Christian but goes around condemning and telling others that they can't be one because you do this or that, really needs to look at themselves as that is not at all what the faith is about and by doing that crap you are at least as sinful as the person you are condemning.

And if there is a reason for us being here, I think it's pretty obvious we are being left to figure it out ourselves. I think personally it's just to experience life, nothing more or less. Just live, be. It's simple, but we complicate it. Loving each other is the best thing we can do, but we don't have to do anything, qe have free will to do whatever we choose so there is no one 'reason' to be here, we constantly choose the reason in each and every moment by our actions, words, thoughts and feelings.

I think I understand what you're saying here, and it is undoubtedly of the utmost importance for Christians to love our neighbours as ourselves, in a genuine and costly way. And where Christians fall short of that, we need to repent of it.

And yet, I wonder if you're not doing exactly what you say some (all?) Christians are guilty of, that is picking out the parts of the bible you like and ignoring the rest. Loving neighbour is vitally important, but Jesus also calls Christians to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength; he also says that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no-one comes to the Father except through him.

When we make anything other than Jesus Christ himself the centre and focus of Christianity (whether it's our keeping of selected rules, loving our neighbour, or simply being kind people) then we're making the same kind of mistake.

Christians should be bold about the truth we proclaim (every part of it), and humble about ourselves (we all sinners, and none is better than any other). We aren't judging anyone, or driven by ego, but heralds of something that is true outside of ourselves.

Sorry if all this sounds long-winded or preachy, but hopefully it helps you understand where we're coming from.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Not beliefs Chris, just the language we use to communicate with each other. These aren't my definitions, they're ours.

So you don't believe that the only test of someone being a Christian is that we say so? Why keep saying it then? You're confusing me smacl

smacl wrote: »

I think all parts of the definition are useful as they illustrate the breadth of reasonable use for the word Christian in common parlance. Each is as valid as the other.

I guess you'd have to ask why the word Christian has become a synonym for kind, loving etc. Could it perhaps be that these are characteristics commonly displayed by people who believe these things, to the extent that it became proverbial?

smacl wrote: »

As for belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, would you consider a Mormon who was sincere in his or her beliefs as yourself to be a Christian? As and atheist, I'd see very little difference in their beliefs and yours, which are based on the same historical figure of Jesus and for the large part the same sources.

Mormons do not share our beliefs about the identity of Jesus Christ; they are not trinitarian and don't subscribe to the ecumenical creeds, so no they are not Christian. I find it quite staggering that you see little difference between the two.

Incidentally, sincerity counts for little in my view. I'm much more interested in whether what we believe is true, or not.

smacl wrote: »

I think yourself and Theological's understanding of what it means to be Christian is perfectly reasonable from your own points of view but also think it is a rather narrow and subjective one. As per Always Tired's post, I also find it divisive.

I have consistently maintained that anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ as lord and saviour is a Christian. A fair rule of thumb is an understanding of and assent to the Apostles Creed. I really fail to see how this is in any way narrow, subjective or divisive; the net could hardly be cast much wider. I also think it's probably one that's shared by most if not all the Christians who post here, and the only person I've seen contradict it is you (across multiple threads! )

What I've said above is in line with what Christians have believed since the beginning and down through history. There is no this is true for me, that is true for you. It's either true, or it's not.

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I guess you'd have to ask why the word Christian has become a synonym for kind, loving etc. Could it perhaps be that these are characteristics commonly displayed by people who believe these things, to the extent that it became proverbial?

I sincerely doubt it. Whilst there have been wonderful Christians, I would suspect the vast bulk attaching to that word either

- weren't Christians as you and I understand it.

- were Christians but didn't make an impact such as to contribute to proverbiality

Something can become proverbial and carry on very longtime. The cart before the horse is used today, long after carts and horses.

I'd plump more for: Christs teaching being considered Best Practice + Christianity was dominant for years = proverb comes about.

Question for you. Do you think there has been a sufficient portion of the population who are Christians (as defined by yourself) such as to generate the weight required to create a proverb?

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does God spanner (act) on this one and not that one, apart from anything in the person (characteristics, acts, etc.) - such that the former are and the latter aren't saved?

If so, how open? For that was the question asked?

Yes, that is what I am saying. Salvation is open on equal terms to all; that is the plain teaching of scripture and of the reformed tradition (and others), and isn't disputed by anyone. The real question is who is ultimately in control of the extent and application of it, us or God?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's get specific - the totality of the argument being too big a fish to fry. When it comes to Calvinism's core support there isn't much afterall (for I see the same few verses crop up again and again - proof positive of it's tenuous foundations)

Here's two of the biggies:



1. Chapter 9 Romans: deals (in the context of the book entire) with the objection to the apparent 'displacement' of physical Israel as God's actual chosen people. God's chosen people are spiritual Israel not, cue surprise, surprise, physical Israel. Spiritual circumcision vs physical circumcision et al. All over the place in the chapter..

The argument is: forget Jacob and Esau as a indication of how individual salvation (the topic if discussion) is wrought. The chapter has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanism of individual salvation.


2. For He chose us in him .. to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Us in him = Christians

In other words:

For He chose Christians to be holy amd blameless in his sight. He predestined Christians to this, that and the other.

The argument:

- God choses and predestines what is to happen to Christians. What is to happen to those who are saved. For things are applied to them.

There is no other reading of this verse that makes syntax sense. Are we to suppose that God chose us (particular unbelievers) to be in him (made believers)?. There is no 'to be' in the text however.


How does Calvinism deal with specifics?

Honestly, I'm not going to respond to the idea that reformed theology is a flimsy facade, based on nothing but a few proof texts and easily dismissed. That's just silly.

I'm also not particularly interested in being proven right in this or in "converting" you to my theological tradition. If someone is a Christian, I would simply encourage them to think these things through for themselves as thoroughly as they can.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a person doesnt understand how salvation works, how can they evangelise? If you don't get to the root of the problem, how can you partake in it's solution?

The root is vital .. says Jesus.

Now I'm not dissing Hellfire & Damnation messagers at the GPO - I think God can use it. He turns all things towards the direction good - no matter the quality of the raw material provided him. Surely though, it matters what message we bring?

I don't believe in the slightest that only Christians from one theological tradition can evangelise correctly. That's sectarianism.

I'm also not sure what hellfire preachers at the GPO have to do with anything, unless you think they are Calvinists?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where? In relation to individual salvation?

Absolutely. God is sovereign over everything, without exception.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But you can't. You stop at paradox. It's a mystery. The question was whether the required sound reasoning, required for the conclusion ' paradox', is sound.

If, for example, you are relying on a snippet from Romans 9, dealing as it does with physical nation vs spiritual nation, then unsound reasoning. And no paradox - just faulty think. Ditto 'chose us in him syntax nonsense.

God at work and own agency don't require Calvinst paradox. As outlined earlier. God 'at work' to save and man able to reject (agency) can go hand in hand neatly enough. Without the 'paradox' of God chosing (aside from anything in man) this one and not that one for salvation - yet man responsible (agency) for the fact God didn't chose him to be saved.


Just because something makes not a lick of sense doesn't make it a pardox. It can just be non-sensical.

Who said anything about stopping at paradox? There's hundreds of years worth of writing where reformed theologians and pastors have developed these ideas. You're free of course to dismiss it all out of hand as nonsensical, but I feel like I'm going to have to use the word "silly" again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Speaking of your conversion, a question for you. In the time prior to your conversion, prior to your eyes opening to God-things, were you at end of self. A thief on a cross, a leper, a disabled from birth man, a man with a dying child.

Were you, in short, in severe pain? It need not be dramatic - my wife was 11 years of age when she was converted. Her pain (conviction of an 11 year olds sin) might not have been as severe as someone who descended the sin path to its more bitter comclusions. But pain enough to turn. Appropriate pain for her - an early adopter.

For severe pain I hold, is the root a salvation. The 'engine room' so to speak.

Nope, not really. My abiding memory is of an irresistible sense that the claims of the gospel are true, and of my need to respond to that. Nothing dramatic or spectacular, and my faith grew and developed from there.

ChrisJ84

theological wrote: »

Goodness smacl. How many times must we go through this with you? It's easy to understand that we don't take the definition of Christian from the dictionary but from the Bible.

It'd be great not to drag another thread off topic with this.

I think of these threads like Second World War transport ships, crossing the Atlantic.

Inevitably, some of them are going to be torpedoed by smacls "What is a Christian anyway" U-Boat screen

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Yes, that is what I am saying. Salvation is open on equal terms to all; that is the plain teaching of scripture and of the reformed tradition (and others), and isn't disputed by anyone. The real question is who is ultimately in control of the extent and application of it, us or God?

Salvation 'open' because God might pick us you mean? "You are human. That fact and the fact that it relies not at all on you places you in equal reckoning for a place in heaven."

Honestly, I'm not going to respond to the idea that reformed theology is a flimsy facade, based on nothing but a few proof texts and easily dismissed. That's just silly.

And I'm not going to engage in a 'weight of scripture' claim - for what is there to be said to such a handwave? If Reformed giant Martyn Lloyd Jones struggled with this particular aspect of Reformed theology then there was a reason. Clearly 'weight of scripture' didn't cut it for him either.

I lean towards Total Depravity for example, a Reformed position. It is the 'God Chooses' element I have issue with

And that is flimsy. I see the same few proof verses trotted out again and again. Not least a bizarre reading of Romans 9.

I'm also not particularly interested in being proven right in this or in "converting" you to my theological tradition. If someone is a Christian, I would simply encourage them to think these things through for themselves as thoroughly as they can.

Having done so and having concluded this element of Reformed theology woefully weak I chose to enquire of a Reformed adherent how it stitches together.

Given you don't seem keen, I would simply say that "If someone is a Christian, I would simply encourage them to think these things through for themselves as thoroughly as they can"

I don't believe in the slightest that only Christians from one theological tradition can evangelise correctly. That's sectarianism.

Hence my saying that Hellfire and Brimstone messangers can be used. The point was: to understand how salvation is wrought is vital to your evangelism.

If you don't understand it (and you seem content not to defend your view) then your evangelism will miss the mark.

You think Paul's understanding didn't inform his evangelism in extremis,?

I'm also not sure what hellfire preachers at the GPO have to do with anything, unless you think they are Calvinists?

I am assuming you agree theirs is an incomplete view. Poor understanding = poor evangelising.

Yet you say understanding isn't that important. Evangelising is, but not the basis of it.

Absolutely. God is sovereign over everything, without exception.

There probably isn't much point in discussion with someone for whom the matter is closed. "Weight of scripture says" is very like our brethern's "The Magesterium says.."

Who said anything about stopping at paradox? There's hundreds of years worth of writing where reformed theologians and pastors have developed these ideas. You're free of course to dismiss it all out of hand as nonsensical, but I feel like I'm going to have to use the word "silly" again.

You seemed to stop at paradox. It was you word.

Nope, not really. My abiding memory is of an irresistible sense that the claims of the gospel are true, and of my need to respond to that. Nothing dramatic or spectacular, and my faith grew and developed from there.

Fair enough, thanks.


Question: if no one evanlgelised, bibles weren't distributed, all churches closed, would it affect the number of people eventually saved*

Assuming you don't hold to the view that all you do is determined by God. In which case the above halt is also his will.

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think of these threads like Second World War transport ships, crossing the Atlantic.

Inevitably, some of them are going to be torpedoed by smacls "What is a Christian anyway" U-Boat screen

Was Abraham a Christian?

Was 90% of the population of Ireland who self identified as Christian (and crammed out the doors of churches - for the pub was nearer the doors) Christian.

Smacl has a point. And unlike the defeat of the U boat threat, I don't see a solution to the problem shy of the Lords arrival back on Earth.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

Thing is though, if you're a member of a club and you break some of the rules, it is up to you to leave the club or the club to expel you. It really isn't anyone else's business. Worth noting for example that a Catholic may not be in a state of grace yet they're still a Catholic.

But is that not basically what's happening when some fire and brimstone preacher states that all gays will burn in hell for example - he is basically expelling rule breakers from his club.....as is his right, it's his club after all.

smacl wrote: »

Really what you're doing above is advocating those Christians that are not in broad agreement with the actions of their church to leave that church. I'd agree, but say a person was still followed the apostle's creed, are they still a Christian? I'd say yes.

Exactly, if you don't like the club your in, join another, it's not like they're in short supply. But yea, i agree with you a broad definition Christian - yes they probably are. But not a member of the Fire and Brimstone Lutherans for Jesus or whoever (I don't know which sub group is most into the aul burning the gays for all eternity)

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

Was Abraham a Christian?

Was 90% of the population of Ireland who self identified as Christian (and crammed out the doors of churches - for the pub was nearer the doors) Christian.

Smacl has a point. And unlike the defeat of the U boat threat, I don't see a solution to the problem shy of the Lords arrival back on Earth.

The Bible says he was justified by faith. He believed in God according to what was revealed about Him at that time and it was counted to him as righteousness (Genesis 15, Romans 4).

Likewise Abraham rejoiced at the thought of Jesus' day. (John 8:56)

nthclare

For the life of me I could never understand why Irish people were fooled into worshiping the Abrahamic sand demon from the middle East.

A loving Diety which wants to burn anyone in hell who doesn't follow the rules, but yet allowed his own son to be tortured and killed for our salvation.
A God of hate, destruction and contradiction that abrahamic demon is demented.

Our own pagan God's were grand, more interesting stories, and Celtic folklore is way better than the Abrahamic folklore which is just a book of stories which people thought was true.

uck51js9zml2yt

nthclare wrote: »

For the life of me I could never understand why Irish people were fooled into worshiping the Abrahamic sand demon from the middle East.

A loving Diety which wants to burn anyone in hell who doesn't follow the rules, but yet allowed his own son to be tortured and killed for our salvation.
A God of hate, destruction and contradiction that abrahamic demon is demented.

Our own pagan God's were grand, more interesting stories, and Celtic folklore is way better than the Abrahamic folklore which is just a book of stories which people thought was true.

You know where the door is, nothing stopping you from using it

realdanbreen

antiskeptic wrote: »

Smacl has a point. And unlike the defeat of the U boat threat, I don't see a solution to the problem shy of the Lords arrival back on Earth.

With people walking away in droves from all churches you would imagine that the Lord would already be pencilling in a visit. I've never understood why he/she would wish to make such a big mystery of the whole thing. Come on down the time is right!

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

There probably isn't much point in discussion with someone for whom the matter is closed. "Weight of scripture says" is very like our brethern's "The Magesterium says.."

Sorry, I didn’t mean to come across quite so snippy. It is closed for me in so far as I am satisfied with where I’ve landed in relation to these things. But this is an area where it is absolutely valid for Christians to agree to disagree. I’m satisfied that reformed theology is a consistent way to understand the sum total of what the bible has to say. But that doesn’t mean for a second that I think there aren't any loose ends, or that I have nothing left to learn or be corrected on.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you don't understand it (and you seem content not to defend your view) then your evangelism will miss the mark.

You think Paul's understanding didn't inform his evangelism in extremis,?

I would summarise my (reformed) position as “God is in control, at all times and with regard to every detail.” I would say that absolutely informs evangelism in extremis; no matter how bad things seem to be going (and Paul had it pretty bad), we don’t need to lose heart. I’m not saying we should be fatalists, I am saying that God’s sovereignty is unshakeable, and is the bedrock on which we can take our stand.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Salvation 'open' because God might pick us you mean? "You are human. That fact and the fact that it relies not at all on you places you in equal reckoning for a place in heaven."
Having done so and having concluded this element of Reformed theology woefully weak I chose to enquire of a Reformed adherent how it stitches together.

Given you don't seem keen, I would simply say that "If someone is a Christian, I would simply encourage them to think these things through for themselves as thoroughly as they can"

That's a fair request, and I’ll try and summarise my understanding as concisely as I can. By election, I mean God’s choosing of those he would redeem out of the human race, foreseen as fallen. Some of the relevant texts are Rom 8:28-39; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Thess 2:13-14; 2 Tim 1:9-10.

This choosing is unconditional in that it isn’t not merited by anything in its subjects, because God doesn’t owe anyone mercy of any kind. We don’t know who he has chosen out of those who don’t yet believe, or why he chooses any in particular, and so evangelism isn’t affected by this truth – it’s not something we have visibility into. Election is more of a pastoral doctrine, for Christians, as it should move us to appreciate how great is God’s grace that has saved us, and to motivate us to humility, confidence, joy etc.

Romans 9 is important, and it does relate to the apparent displacement of physical Israel as God’s covenant people. But I don’t see how that can be neatly untied from what happens to individuals, since spiritual Israel is made up of all those who are saved by faith. Paul addresses this down through v17 when he uses the example of Pharaoh (an individual!) to show how this doesn’t imply injustice on God’s part. Incidentally, Paul then moves into Romans 10 and sees no contradiction with what he has just said about God’s sovereign choosing, and the fact that the message of salvation is open to all. Same goes for Ephesians 1:4 that you referenced, I don’t see how we can say it applies to Christians collectively, but not to Christians individually. Both are true.

Last thing to say is that the reformed doctrines all flow into one another and logically imply and require one another; so, I don’t think you can hold total depravity and at the same time deny unconditional election.

And again, if any Christian has thought these things through and landed in a different place to me then I'm content for us to disagree.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hence my saying that Hellfire and Brimstone messangers can be used. The point was: to understand how salvation is wrought is vital to your evangelism.

I am assuming you agree theirs is an incomplete view. Poor understanding = poor evangelising.

Yet you say understanding isn't that important. Evangelising is, but not the basis of it.

Yes, I see what you’re saying. The primacy I give to God’s sovereignty means that I can say that he will use imperfect means to achieve his planned ends. In fact, that will always be the case as everyone falls short in many ways, and no-one has a perfect understanding of any doctrine or area of the faith. Clearly, some differences are more important than others. For example, “There are many ways to God” is something I can’t agree to disagree on. On the other hand, saying “I don’t agree with the 5 points of Calvinism” is fair enough, that is very much a secondary issue.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seemed to stop at paradox. It was you word.

I think there is always going to be paradox / mystery, that can’t be avoided. If I understand you rightly, you’re just moving the mystery to a slightly different place. If you’re saying that God is at work in salvation, and we know that not everyone responds, what makes the difference? Why is God’s intervention (in whatever form) effective for some and not for others? Genuine question, I’m interested to know your thinking on this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question: if no one evanlgelised, bibles weren't distributed, all churches closed, would it affect the number of people eventually saved*

Assuming you don't hold to the view that all you do is determined by God. In which case the above halt is also his will.

I think this is kind of an impossible question to answer. Scripture is clear that the church, i.e. Christians, is the instrumental means by which the gospel goes out into the world. We are commanded to do so, and should expect that God will, by his grace, keep this effort going until the Lord returns. I think this question really boils down to “Could God have chosen to do things differently?” to which the answer must be yes, but he didn’t!!

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

God picking some for salvation and not picking others for salvation (a.k.a. picking them for damnation by virtue of not having picked them for salvation).

The picking this one and not that one for salvation has nothing to do with anything about or in the person. Nothing they do or don't do has anything to do with God's (sovereign) choice.

Why this one and not that one? Well that's a mystery.

I asked the question of theological, and not you.

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But is that not basically what's happening when some fire and brimstone preacher states that all gays will burn in hell for example - he is basically expelling rule breakers from his club.....as is his right, it's his club after all.

Exactly, if you don't like the club your in, join another, it's not like they're in short supply. But yea, i agree with you a broad definition Christian - yes they probably are. But not a member of the Fire and Brimstone Lutherans for Jesus or whoever (I don't know which sub group is most into the aul burning the gays for all eternity)

I think the problem arises where you take one more extreme expression of Christianity and assert that it is definitive of Christianity in general. Given the schisms in the history of Christianity and the large number of different churches that refer to themselves as Christian, I'm of then opinion that there isn't a single definitive meaning for "Christian" beyond that given in standard English dictionaries. I don't believe for example that the hellfire and brimstone, turn or burn style of Christianity is typical most Irish people's understanding of what it means to be Christian. Nor for that matter is Evangelicalism any way representative, with under 10 thousand Evangelical Christians recorded in this country in 2016 versus 3.7 million Catholics (and 486 thousand non-religious FWIW).

The declarations of those particular Christians who say gay people are going to hell, or that you're not a Christian if you don't meet their narrow definition of the word, really need to be taken with a pinch of salt as, in the context of this country, they really only speak for a very small minority at this point in time.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

The declarations of those particular Christians who say gay people are going to hell, or that you're not a Christian if you don't meet their narrow definition of the word, really need to be taken with a pinch of salt as, in the context of this country, they really only speak for a very small minority at this point in time.

I'd take it with a pinch of salt about the size of lotts wife tbh!

But I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to express them.

theological

hinault wrote: »

I asked the question of theological, and not you.

Apologies for the slow reply.

hinault wrote: »

What is what you call, election?

Election is God's sovereign choice. He chooses who will come to Him in faith.

This isn't solely a Protestant view. Actually Calvin leaned on the earlier writing of Augustine when he was forming his theological position. Anglicanism also affirms predestination in the 39 Articles of Religion.