Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?
Options
Comments
-
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens' razor probably has been quoted many times before, but it still rings true. Onus is on the person making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence, not the skeptic. That's how both science and reality works. To claim an invisible supreme being controls and observes everything we do is an extraordinary claim.
As a medical doctor who sees cancer cases everyday, I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence of a higher power or afterlife. I've never seen prayer cure a cancer. Evidence based medicine does it every day though. Anyone that claims a person dying from cancer is God's will is sadistic.
People only believe in religion due to indoctrination from birth. it's mass brainwashing. No rational adult would ever accept this religious nonsense if it was first presented to them when they reached adulthood. Most religious people are also ironically ignorant of every other religion on earth, more so than the infidels.0 -
Cirrus Incus wrote: »"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens' razor probably has been quoted many times before, but it still rings true. Onus is on the person making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence, not the skeptic. That's how both science and reality works. To claim an invisible supreme being controls and observes everything we do is an extraordinary claim.
As a medical doctor who sees cancer cases everyday, I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence of a higher power or afterlife. I've never seen prayer cure a cancer. Evidence based medicine does it every day though. Anyone that claims a person dying from cancer is God's will is sadistic.
People only believe in religion due to indoctrination from birth. it's mass brainwashing. No rational adult would ever accept this religious nonsense if it was first presented to them when they reached adulthood. Most religious people are also ironically ignorant of every other religion on earth, more so than the infidels.
Mod warning: Please read the charter and ask yourself, as a rational adult, whether your post above meets the the point below.
1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.
I'm not carding you on this occasion as your post is borderline. I suspect your line of discussion is better suited to the A&A forum. If you are going to post here again, I would ask you to first read and understand the charter. Please do not respond in thread, any questions via PM or via the feedback thread. Thanks for your attention.
0 -
Cirrus Incus wrote: »"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens' razor probably has been quoted many times before, but it still rings true. Onus is on the person making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence, not the skeptic. That's how both science and reality works. To claim an invisible supreme being controls and observes everything we do is an extraordinary claim.
As a medical doctor who sees cancer cases everyday, I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence of a higher power or afterlife. I've never seen prayer cure a cancer. Evidence based medicine does it every day though. Anyone that claims a person dying from cancer is God's will is sadistic.
People only believe in religion due to indoctrination from birth. it's mass brainwashing. No rational adult would ever accept this religious nonsense if it was first presented to them when they reached adulthood. Most religious people are also ironically ignorant of every other religion on earth, more so than the infidels.
Hitchens omitted giving us evidence that his way of assessing the evidence and deciding what is admissible as evidence ...is the optimal way to go about things.
We can therefore dismiss his views - based on his own ditty.
Unfortunately for your simplistic view, people a lot smarter than you who have achieved a lot more than you conclude God does exist.
If smart people are capable of being brainwashed into a view then why not you into your simplistic view: brainwashed to suppose people can be so brainwashed?
You've read Hitchens and seem to have swallowed his ditty without any critical assessment if it, afterall.
You really think someone's philosophical musings (e.g. empiricism is the best way to establish fact and fiction), which cannot be demonstrated true, get some kind of free pass? That that belief doesn't have to demonstrate itself true?0 -
0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »They are two distinct things. A bus company sovereignly choses to transport whoever is on the 46A bus to a destination. That doesn't mean it choses who is on the bus.
Sure, but someone has to choose who get's on the bus - otherwise it will remain an empty bus!!!antiskeptic wrote: »I think your error is this. Man chosing/ willing for God is scripturally excluded. And so you conclude the only other option is that God choses man. And a doctrine is then constructed to show this. But they don't stack up any better elsewhere than they don't at Romans 9. The idea is imported, not derived from scripture due to the 'logical' conclusion that it must be God chosing man since man can't chose God.
This isn’t correct, God’s sovereignty in salvation is not merely a logical conclusion but a biblical one, read out of the text and not into it. The reasons that it can be seen in Romans 9 are in my last post: the language Paul uses, the question he is trying to answer (why are so many Jews not in spiritual Israel?) and the way he talks about his examples (Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh).
We always use scripture to understand scripture, and the meaning of words in clear passages helps us understand the meaning of more difficult ones. To me, what I have outlined is also the most natural and consistent way to read Romans 9.antiskeptic wrote: »But this other way, where man wills his destruction by refusal, works fine.
This is a distinction without a difference – in the end, we’re still doing the choosing. If this was how salvation worked then no-one would be saved because we all will our destruction and reject God. It also renders God impotent in relation to salvation, waiting for us to choose not to reject him.antiskeptic wrote: »Not God sitting on high and mighty throne casting finger hither and thither in mysterious fashion, plucking petals from a daisy: "I love thee, I love thee not.."
I don’t think anyone with a Reformed view thinks like this, so it amounts to straw manning.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sure, but someone has to choose who get's on the bus - otherwise ..
You missed the bit about things able to happen without anyone choosing FOR it to happen.
Point is, there are two choice you invoke, choosing where the bus goes. Choosing who is on it. You are being asked where you get the second choice. From Romans.This isn’t correct, God’s sovereignty in salvation is not merely a logical conclusion but a biblical one, read out of the text and not into it. The reasons that it can be seen in Romans 9 are in my last post: the language Paul uses, the question he is trying to answer (why are so many Jews not in spiritual Israel?) and the way he talks about his examples (Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh).
This is very fluffy. I'm looking for you to be precise. What text shows that God choses who to save? Where in Romans does the idea first get introduced? Give me the verse and say which word is the word which starts this 2nd choice
So many jews aren't in spiritual Israel because they sought salvation by works and salvation isn't by works. Salvation not by works is not an argument for God choosing to save this one and not that one.
What's 'this way he talks' talk?? The way Paul talks is precise, forensic, leaving no stone unturned,stepwise , logical. "What shall we say then, because of this, and so, moreover, furthermore.." type talk. Linking, stepwise, building if his case.
Where does he stepwise himself into God choosing who and who not to save. Can you do likewise: start your position where Paul starts it amd explain in stepwise fashion, from the text in front of you. Not broad brush stroke, not saying the weight of scripture says. Paul and God choosing who to save .. from Romans 9.We always use scripture to understand scripture, and the meaning of words in clear passages helps us understand the meaning of more difficult ones. To me, what I have outlined is also the most natural and consistent way to read Romans 9.
What is this other scripture that unpacks Romans? I mean specifically. You might, for example being importing 'election' meaning 'God chose to save' from somewhere else where that case is actually made in scripture. We could look at that.
Its not enough to say scripture interprets scripture if you can't show how this is done.This is a distinction without a difference – in the end, we’re still doing the choosing. If this was how salvation worked then no-one would be saved because we all will our destruction and reject God. It also renders God impotent in relation to salvation, waiting for us to choose not to reject him.
The only thing excluded by scripture is salvation obtained by will of man. You might not like it but salvation obtained by man doing nothing, is not salvation obtained by the will of man. Irish smoked salmon vs smoked Irish salmon. Two completely different things. And if your not careful you'll confuse the one with the other.
Scripture only excludes what it excludes. Everything else is permissible as a possibility.
Words mean words until otherwise interpreted by scripture. Otherwise dog doesn't mean dog, nor wall, wall.
'Refuse' means an act of will until it is shown that the will cannot but refuse (making will not mean will in the normal sense anymore). If scripture interprets the word 'will' to mean something that cannot but exercise in a set direction then fair enough: scripture can define a word. But it doesn't.
I don't see the problem of God powerless to ensure we are saved. If it doesn't rest on his choice then what of it? It would be his sovereign choice to have it that way. And good enough for him if that's the way he wants it.
Your objection is a bit like physical Israels!I don’t think anyone with a Reformed view thinks like this, so it amounts to straw manning.
The Reformed view, to its deficit, has no insight into why God might chose this one and not that one. What is thought, in a vaccum is probably neither here nor there. It can be anything, God's choice.
.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »You missed the bit about things able to happen without anyone choosing FOR it to happen.
Ok, so how does it happen? If God is not sovereign in salvation, how are any saved?antiskeptic wrote: »Point is, there are two choice you invoke, choosing where the bus goes. Choosing who is on it. You are being asked where you get the second choice. From Romans.
Sure, Romans 9:8-13, especially verse 11.antiskeptic wrote: »This is very fluffy. I'm looking for you to be precise. What text shows that God choses who to save? Where in Romans does the idea first get introduced? Give me the verse and say which word is the word which starts this 2nd choice
So many jews aren't in spiritual Israel because they sought salvation by works and salvation isn't by works. Salvation not by works is not an argument for God choosing to save this one and not that one.
What's 'this way he talks' talk?? The way Paul talks is precise, forensic, leaving no stone unturned,stepwise , logical. "What shall we say then, because of this, and so, moreover, furthermore.." type talk. Linking, stepwise, building if his case.
Where does he stepwise himself into God choosing who and who not to save. Can you do likewise: start your position where Paul starts it amd explain in stepwise fashion, from the text in front of you. Not broad brush stroke, not saying the weight of scripture says. Paul and God choosing who to save .. from Romans 9.
It is fluffy, because I didn't want to retype my earlier post - #409.
Like I said before, my argument is that:
The question that sparks the discussion in chapter 9 is why so many Jews have not been saved through the gospel. Paul explains in verse 6-9 that it is the children of the promise and not of the flesh that are Abrahams spiritual descendants. This refers to salvation, and therefore so does the whole paragraph that follows.
This is further emphasised by the next example Paul uses in 10-12. While there was some difference between Isaac and Ishmael, there is no such difference between Jacob and Esau - but yet God chose between them "though they were not yet born and had done nothing, either good or bad" So, they had neither chosen nor rejected God.
Again, this relates to salvation and not just to their historical roles or the nations they represent. The language Paul uses makes this clear, because of how it is used elsewhere:
- reckoned (Romans 4:2-21)
- election (Romans 11:5, 7, 28; Acts 9:15; 1 Thes 1:4; 2 Peter 1:10)
- purpose (Romans 8:28; Eph 1:11)
- works (Romans 4:4-8)
- calls (Romans 8:29)
Verses 14-18 unpack this further, as Paul's asks and answers whether this is unjust on God's part - why should he save one and not the other? Verses 19-29 carry the argument further - God is the potter, and we the clay.
So, my position rests on the fact that Romans 9 has salvation in view as well as the fate of national Israel, for the reasons above. If it does, and I think that fact is clear, then God's sovereignty in salvation flows directly from the text.antiskeptic wrote: »What is this other scripture that unpacks Romans? I mean specifically. You might, for example being importing 'election' meaning 'God chose to save' from somewhere else where that case is actually made in scripture. We could look at that.
Its not enough to say scripture interprets scripture if you can't show how this is done.
See above, where I have included some cross references. If I want to know what specific words mean in scripture, I will look at how those same words are used elsewhere - that is not importing meaning into Romans 9. If you think the language used here means something different to how it is used elsewhere, then you would need to explain why.antiskeptic wrote: »The only thing excluded by scripture is salvation obtained by will of man. You might not like it but salvation obtained by man doing nothing, is not salvation obtained by the will of man. Irish smoked salmon vs smoked Irish salmon. Two completely different things. And if your not careful you'll confuse the one with the other
I don't see the problem of God powerless to ensure we are saved. If it doesn't rest on his choice then what of it? It would be his sovereign choice to have it that way. And good enough for him if that's the way he wants it.
You're going to have to explain what you mean here. What does salvation rest on, specifically?antiskeptic wrote: »The Reformed view, to its deficit, has no insight into why God might chose this one and not that one. What is thought, in a vaccum is probably neither here nor there. It can be anything, God's choice.
The best answer we have is Romans 9:19-29. We don't know why, and we aren't meant to know. It doesn't affect our job in the slightest, which is to spread the gospel. It also doesn't affect the responsibility of our hearers, which is to respond with faith. The Reformed view is not meant provoke senseless speculation but rather to excite joy and assurance in Christians, that God has purposed to save us, specifically, and will accomplish that without doubt.0 -
Ok, so how does it happen? If God is not sovereign in salvation, how are any saved?
I didn't say God isn't sovereign in salvation. The issue is what his being sovereign means.
Sovereign: If God wanted salvation to be by works then it would be by works. His sovereign choice. If someone didn't work and wasn't saved it wouldn't impact in God's sovereignty. It would be the persons choice that damned them (or saved them, in the event they worked). God would remain sovereign with either outcome.
Whatever way salvation is wrought is because God has decided it be so.Sure, Romans 9:8-13, especially verse 11.
It is fluffy, because I didn't want to retype my earlier post - #409.
Like I said before, my argument is that:
The question that sparks the discussion in chapter 9 is why so many Jews have not been saved through the gospel.
Side question: where does it mention "saved through the gospel"?
The issue here is: who are God's people and who are not. The question/objection addressed by Paul is better put: "but what about physical Israel?" That question arises because of Romans up to now - salvation by faith has been unfurled. Naturally a question arises: but what then does that mean for what was thought to be God"s chosen people?Paul explains in verse 6-9 that it is the children of the promise and not of the flesh that are Abrahams spiritual descendants. This refers to salvation, and therefore so does the whole paragraph that follows.
It refers to salvation in terms of 'the class of people who are saved'. Spiritual jews, those by faith, those called.. whatever.
It says nothing about God choosing to make someone have these attributes.
People with these attributes are the saved. You need to show show God chose to assign those attributes to this one and that one aside from anything in or about the person.
Which verse starts that specific argument? Start there and work it out, verse by verse.This is further emphasised by the next example Paul uses in 10-12. While there was some difference between Isaac and Ishmael, there is no such difference between Jacob and Esau - but yet God chose between them "though they were not yet born and had done nothing, either good or bad" So, they had neither chosen nor rejected God.
Again, this relates to salvation and not just to their historical roles or the nations they represent.
There is nothing about salvation mentioned though. The purpose in election being maintained is that it be by faith/calling. Written right there on the page. God chose between them for that reason.
There is nothing about God choosing to save one and not the other in any case.
[Quote The language Paul uses makes this clear, because of how it is used elsewhere:[/quote]
This is what I thought you were doing.
God choosing w.r.t. personal salvation doesn't arise in Romans 9. What arises are words which you feel indicate God choosing w.r.t. personal salvation. Maybe "election"? Maybe "calls"?
In which case the task is to find the "doctrine of God choosing (aside from anything in or about the person) w.r.t. personal salvation" elsewhere in scripture. If it can be established elsewhere then absolutely fine, it could very well be that we can read that going on with the twins. I wouldn't argue further in that event.
It's not extractable from Romans 9 however. And I very much doubt it can be extracted from anywhere else.reckoned (Romans 4:2-21)
- election (Romans 11:5, 7, 28; Acts 9:15; 1 Thes 1:4; 2 Peter 1:10)
- purpose (Romans 8:28; Eph 1:11)
- works (Romans 4:4-8)
- calls (Romans 8:29)
Pick whichever you think starts the case for your doctrine and we can have a look.Verses 14-18 unpack this further, as Paul's asks and answers whether this is unjust on God's part - why should he save one and not the other? Verses 19-29 carry the argument further - God is the potter, and we the clay.
So, my position rests on the fact that Romans 9 has salvation in view as well as the fate of national Israel, for the reasons above. If it does, and I think that fact is clear, then God's sovereignty in salvation flows directly from the text.
See above, where I have included some cross references. If I want to know what specific words mean in scripture, I will look at how those same words are used elsewhere - that is not importing meaning into Romans 9. If you think the language used here means something different to how it is used elsewhere, then you would need to explain why.
I'll halt here. You appear, like I say, to be developing an argument based on the assumption that you've established a starting point. I don't think you've done that. You kind of mention a passage and say "that's it" but that's problematic when the word salvation isn't mentioned. And when the words you take to mean salvation aren't at all clear cut.
The best thing is as I said above: start at the start. First verse in Romans which adds a brick to the wall you're trying to construct.
-
I'll respond to the remainder of your post separately. I've lost this post twice and want to get it off my phone!0 -
antiskeptic wrote:The only thing excluded by scripture is salvation obtained by will of man. You might not like it but salvation obtained by man doing nothing, is not salvation obtained by the will of man. Irish smoked salmon vs smoked Irish salmon. Two completely different things. And if your not careful you'll confuse the one with the other
I don't see the problem of God powerless to ensure we are saved. If it doesn't rest on his choice then what of it? It would be his sovereign choice to have it that way. And good enough for him if that's the way he wants it.You're going to have to explain what you mean here. What does salvation rest on, specifically?
Specifically? Man doing nothing.
In broad brushstrokes:
God works to save all men. If man doesn't will with finality* to thwart God's work then man will be surely brought to faith. God will see to that.
It might be, indeed will be, with man kicking and screaming the whole way - did not CS Lewis describe himself as the most reluctant convert in all England? Man is a sinner, a rebel, God-hating afterall.
Note that nothing is required of man in order that God complete His work. Man doesn't have to work or contribute (for scripture excludes that). Man's will, if it is to express, does nothing. Except resist.
If it expresses. It doesn't need to express. Man might sin and kick and resist. But there is nothing in scripture saying man is compelled at every point to resist God.
[The fact that men are compelled by conscience to act for good is proof that they are compelled to do evil all the time. If man could only and ever do evil, the world would be a far bigger hellhole than it already is.]
However if man wills against to the bitter end, if he refuses and refuses and refuses God's effort to bring him to his knees, then God's work is thwarted and man is lost. Man's will damns him.
Man's will damning him isn't excluded by scripture. Indeed it is amply supported.
Man lost does not affect God's sovereignty in the event this is Gods way of salvation/damnation.
Salvation only of God. Man does nothing.
Damnation by will of man.
No problem scripturally that I can see. God being powerless if man says no affects God's sovereignty not one bit. God has gotten his way whether man is lost or found. It only takes for God to decide to allow that man can damn himself if he really wills it so.
-
The original sin and the thing whicj seperated man from God was man opting for a self-directed life. One independent of God.
Man cannot opt to relinquish the self directed life - scripture excludes that. We are too far gone to go back the ways by choice.
However, and somewhst fortuitously, we are too far gone such as to continue on the very end of what a self directed life entails. And so we can get to the point were we cannot bear the consequences of the self directed life. Or life on our own.
We can plumb the depths of personal sin. And unless we exercise our will such as to suppress it, we will be dogged by guilt and shame, like the woman at the well, or the traitor tax collector, or the woman caught in adultery. Or we will be brought to despair by the self directed uncaring attitude of others: the outcast leper, the thief on a cross, the blind man at the gate the invalid by the pool.
Life gives us ample opportunity to arrive at this point, the end of our ability to withstand self directed life.
Unless we will it not.
That's who the bible says are saved: those who come to the end of themselves. And which point there is no option but God.The best answer we have is Romans 9:19-29. We don't know why, and we aren't meant to know. It doesn't affect our job in the slightest, which is to spread the gospel. It also doesn't affect the responsibility of our hearers, which is to respond with faith. The Reformed view is not meant provoke senseless speculation but rather to excite joy and assurance in Christians, that God has purposed to save us, specifically, and will accomplish that without doubt.
Fair enough. But you have to agree that a doctrine which does reveal how and why God saves is more interesting and revealing of God's nature than one which puts a big question mark over the issue.
It is also fair to say that the above means of salvation allows for the undoubted importance a mans will has in God's economy. It would be a bit bizarre that God prized Adam's will to the point of allowing it to set the direction of mankind. And then go about saving and not saving without any reference at all to the will of man! No?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I didn't say God isn't sovereign in salvation. The issue is what his being sovereign means.
Sovereign: If God wanted salvation to be by works then it would be by works. His sovereign choice. If someone didn't work and wasn't saved it wouldn't impact in God's sovereignty. It would be the persons choice that damned them (or saved them, in the event they worked). God would remain sovereign with either outcome.
Whatever way salvation is wrought is because God has decided it be so.
The only caveat I would add to this is that God's sovereignty is held in balance with his other attributes (justice, goodness, holiness etc.) This is one reason why salvation by works doesn't work - God will never sovereignly direct something that violates his character in some other way.antiskeptic wrote: »Side question: where does it mention "saved through the gospel"?
Fair enough, I was using this as shorthand. The main question being asked in Romans 9 is why, now that the Messiah has come, are so many of God's historic people (Israel) apparently left out of his saving work. Does this mean that God's promises to Israel in the past have failed?antiskeptic wrote: »The issue here is: who are God's people and who are not.
Yes, but God's people are those who are saved - there is no difference between the two. For the me, the argument that Romans 9 is only concerned with physical Israel and not with salvation doesn't make much sense, either in terms of the immediate context or the context of Romans as a whole.antiskeptic wrote: »There is nothing about salvation mentioned though. The purpose in election being maintained is that it be by faith/calling. Written right there on the page. God chose between them for that reason.
I think that unpacking this is a good way to try and move the discussion forward.
What do you think verse 11 means? What does it mean that God chose Jacob and not Esau? What was he chosen for / to, and why?0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Specifically? Man doing nothing.
In broad brushstrokes:
God works to save all men. If man doesn't will with finality* to thwart God's work then man will be surely brought to faith. God will see to that.
It might be, indeed will be, with man kicking and screaming the whole way - did not CS Lewis describe himself as the most reluctant convert in all England? Man is a sinner, a rebel, God-hating afterall.
Note that nothing is required of man in order that God complete His work. Man doesn't have to work or contribute (for scripture excludes that). Man's will, if it is to express, does nothing. Except resist.
If it expresses. It doesn't need to express. Man might sin and kick and resist. But there is nothing in scripture saying man is compelled at every point to resist God.
[The fact that men are compelled by conscience to act for good is proof that they are compelled to do evil all the time. If man could only and ever do evil, the world would be a far bigger hellhole than it already is.]
However if man wills against to the bitter end, if he refuses and refuses and refuses God's effort to bring him to his knees, then God's work is thwarted and man is lost. Man's will damns him.
Man's will damning him isn't excluded by scripture. Indeed it is amply supported.
Man lost does not affect God's sovereignty in the event this is Gods way of salvation/damnation.
Salvation only of God. Man does nothing.
Damnation by will of man.
No problem scripturally that I can see. God being powerless if man says no affects God's sovereignty not one bit. God has gotten his way whether man is lost or found. It only takes for God to decide to allow that man can damn himself if he really wills it so.
-
The original sin and the thing whicj seperated man from God was man opting for a self-directed life. One independent of God.
Man cannot opt to relinquish the self directed life - scripture excludes that. We are too far gone to go back the ways by choice.
However, and somewhst fortuitously, we are too far gone such as to continue on the very end of what a self directed life entails. And so we can get to the point were we cannot bear the consequences of the self directed life. Or life on our own.
We can plumb the depths of personal sin. And unless we exercise our will such as to suppress it, we will be dogged by guilt and shame, like the woman at the well, or the traitor tax collector, or the woman caught in adultery. Or we will be brought to despair by the self directed uncaring attitude of others: the outcast leper, the thief on a cross, the blind man at the gate the invalid by the pool.
Life gives us ample opportunity to arrive at this point, the end of our ability to withstand self directed life.
Unless we will it not.
That's who the bible says are saved: those who come to the end of themselves. And which point there is no option but God.
Thanks for this antiskeptic. The problem I see with this is that our salvation still depends, in some way and to some extent, on us. As you say above, if we resist long enough God's will is thwarted.
The obvious question is, why do some resist and not others? Is it something in us, or does God intervene in some way? That brings us back to the question we started with - is salvation by works or of God.antiskeptic wrote: »Fair enough. But you have to agree that a doctrine which does reveal how and why God saves is more interesting and revealing of God's nature than one which puts a big question mark over the issue.
I would want to say that the Reformed understanding of salvation does reveal how and why God saves: according to his mercy and grace, and for his glory. The question mark, from our perspective is exactly who will respond to the gospel with repentance and faith. But that is really none of our concern, as we are called to be faithful and to offer the good news of Jesus Christ to all without discrimination.antiskeptic wrote: »It is also fair to say that the above means of salvation allows for the undoubted importance a mans will has in God's economy. It would be a bit bizarre that God prized Adam's will to the point of allowing it to set the direction of mankind. And then go about saving and not saving without any reference at all to the will of man! No?
The problem with our will is that is is bent towards evil, and naturally (after the fall) rejects God. The only way for this to change is for God to graciously intervene and change our will, so that we can respond to him with faith. That is why I major so much on God's sovereignty, as without his electing grace no-one would respond with faith.
These things aren't meant to be encouraging to believers - if we believe, then underpinning that is God's sovereignty. Our salvation is secure and immovable, and doesn't depend on our efforts or anything else in us. It should also give us confidence in evangelism - as God has acted to save us, so we can be sure he will act in a similar way to save others.0 -
-
Thanks for this antiskeptic. The problem I see with this is that our salvation still depends, in some way and to some extent, on us.
So what? You can only exclude what scripture allows you to exclude. And scripture is both limited and specific in what we can exclude by way of 'depends on us'
The.mistake TULIP's U makes is that is says Unconditional when scripture doesn't say unconditional. Scripture only excludes the conditions it excludes.
Which is not an exhaustive list
-
Our damnation depending on us. That is, our will expressing to ensure our damnation is not a contribution to salvation. Its a contribution to damnation
Our salvation can't be said to depend on us (in any active sense) since there is no will expression of ours involved in obtaining it.
That is key: will doing nothing is not an expression of will. Doing nothing is precisely that: zero activity
Of course, we are central to our eternal destination but scripture only excludes our contributing towards our salvation.
"Salvation ..not by a man's will" .. is upheld when a will does nothing and in doing nothing, impedes not God bringing us to salvation.As you say above, if we resist long enough God's will is thwarted.
God wanting none should perish doesn't trump the bigger picture. God permitting folk to cleave to a no God life if they so will.
God didn't want Adam to sin. But the bigger picture is that he wanted Adam to be able to choose more than he didn't want Adam to sin.The obvious question is, why do some resist and not others? Is it something in us, or does God intervene in some way?
I would have thought the answer obvious?
The one thing that prevents a man being brought to the end of himself and the end of his self directed life is a man's own will.
He simply won't let go of his being god. There is no place further to go and no need to go further than "I will not"That brings us back to the question we started with - is salvation by works or of God.
Salvation of God. Man contributes nothing other than doing nothing. Scripture only excludes contribution by doing something.
The very term 'work' implies something happening, calories being burnt, etc. Nothing happening is not work. Per definition.I would want to say that the Reformed understanding of salvation does reveal how and why God saves: according to his mercy and grace, and for his glory.
That doesn't say very much as to his basis for picking this one to save and not that one.
The suggested solution I propose terminates in far more satisfactory way, I think:
They willed it not.The problem with our will is that is is bent towards evil, and naturally (after the fall) rejects God. The only way for this to change is for God to graciously intervene and change our will, so that we can respond to him with faith. That is why I major so much on God's sovereignty, as without his electing grace no-one would respond with faith.
The mechanism I propose accepts mans sin bent will. And utilises it. If man expresses his will, sin follows. "Only evil all the time" is the nature of mans will expressing.
But what happens when man's sin bent will is restrained from expressing? I don't mean big picture salvation events. Just on a daily basis.
Man has a conscience and THAT restrains his sin bent will. That's why the world isn't as awful as it could be. That's why parents will sacrifice themselves for a child or a soldier will dive on a grenade and save his comrades.
God's will in us, working against our Adamic will.
So yeah, two scripturally well evidenced wills combatting each other. Our sin bent vs Gods holy duking it out each and every day in a million ways.These things are meant to be encouraging to believers - if we believe, then underpinning that is God's sovereignty. Our salvation is secure and immovable, and doesn't depend on our efforts or anything else in us.
God sovereign merely means salvation shall be wrought as he would have it. If he permits us to damn ourselves, should we so will, then sovereignty not affected.
I hold that salvation doesn't require work (if anything it requires non-work).I don't think holding onto salvation thus obtained requires work either.
The question answered at salvation is, in effect, "do you surrender your Adamic throne".
Its a profound question to answer - being the very root of the reason for separation betweem man and God. Once surrendered and Adamic man executed at the cross, there can be no going back. Can be no loss of salvation or need to retain it by work.It should also give us confidence in evangelism - as God has acted to save us, so we can be sure he will act in a similar way to save others.
There are a number of plusses to the mechanism I outline:
- its scriptural. Salvation of God. Not by man's effort
- it answers the question why this one saved and that one not. They willed it not.
- it tracks the actual Adamic problem: if Adam the problem then reversal of Adam is the solution.
- end of self is the scriptural drumbeat regarding who is saved. The characteristic of all who end up at Jesus is that they are at end of self. At end of ability to live via the self directed life. Case after NT amd OT case.
- its simple and elegant. The Adamic life produces suffering. And that very suffering can be used to bring about the end of the Adamic life. Ironic.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I would have thought the answer obvious?
The one thing that prevents a man being brought to the end of himself and the end of his self directed life is a man's own will.
He simply won't let go of his being god. There is no place further to go and no need to go further than "I will not"
Ok, so why do some come to an end of themselves and not others? Is it something in them / that they do that brings them to this point? Or something that God does? Or something else?0 -
Ok, so why do some come to an end of themselves and not others? Is it something in them / that they do that brings them to this point? Or something that God does? Or something else?
Two forces work to bring a person to the end of themselves:
1.The effect of sin, whether ones own sin having negative effect (e.g. drug addiction). Or whether anothers sin having negative effect on you (e.g. drunk driver leaves you paralysed and in agony). Or whether the fallen world (e.g cancer)
2. Our knowledge of God. We have a conscience. Our hearts bear witness as to what is right, true, proper.
We know of our own wrongdoing (even if we can keep that suppressed through sin-bent will exertion). And we know the world is wrong/bent/skewed.
This knowing (because he let us know) is a calibration agent. If we are not suppressing truth we have something to meausure our situation against. Our self directed morality is found wanting. The ability of our self directed life to satisfy is is found wanting (oh wretched cocaine-addicted man that I am). Our self directed abilty to cope with what the world throws at us is found wanting.
Sin. And that which lets us recognise sin are the combined forces.
-
What brings thing to a head? The will defeated or exhausted.
For with the expression of will comes the ability to suppress the truth. The truth of what sin is about. And the truth about the uselessness of self sufficient living. Maintain the suppression and the truth of your desperate situation won't rise to the surface and into full view. You will continue to believe the lie: that another line of coke will solve your problem
But if the will is exhausted by these forces and the truth presents before your eyes and you see yourself for what you are?
Wouldn't you be convinced of "sin, righteousness amd judgement?"
Why one and not the other? That's a matter of how much effort a person puts into suppressing and maintaining the lie. That is, how much a person wants to maintain the self directed, "I'm The Boss" life. If they will they can. They just have to tell a big enough lie to themselves to keep the truth buried.
It is sheer force of will that prevents a person seeing their actual position. Nothing else. The truth is there for everyone from word go. Life cranks up the pressure. And we exert more force of will to keep the developing picture submerged and out of view.
Just our will. They refused to believe the truth and so be saved. They suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.
All pointing to will expression being the reason for our damnation0 -
One doesn't need to know God to have a conscience. One doesn't need to know god to know what is right, true and proper.0
-
One doesn't need to know God to have a conscience. One doesn't need to know god to know what is right, true and proper.
Not in the sense that I know God, no you don't.
It follows though, that if conscience is from God, then you are positioned and equipped to give your answer to God on the God/not God question he poses.
Even if you don't know its God behind comsciemce. Consider:
If presented with two flavours of ice cream, you can hold up your hand to show which one you prefer, having tasted both.
It doesn't really matter who put the ice creams in your hand (if you think blind evolution produced conscience then fine) nor what the flavours are called.
All that matters, from the point of view of God is that you taste and you pick. If you prefer the not God flavour then that is what God will grant your for eternity. Ditto the God flavour.
For that is what this life gives us. A taste of what God and not God is like. We don't have to believe in him in the sense of knowing he exists to taste him/not him flavours0
Advertisement