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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?
Comments
-
Yes, that's a really good point - and those of us who profess Christianity have zero excuse for such inconsistency.
One observation is that Christianity (and some other belief systems) give us a framework to understand and critique such an attitude. I would question whether an atheist has the same advantage, and in fact you could argue that a materialist philosophy is entirely consistent with atheism.
As with Peregrinus, I think you need to unambiguously define what you mean by 'materialist philosophy' for the above post to have any meaning.0 -
Curious to know what you mean by "impose" here? Does evangelism count, or are you thinking more of state sponsored religions and such?
Nope. I don't take issue with religions openly advocating their belief system once they're accepting that others are equally free to advocate different and often contrary ideas. State sponsored religions are where I'd have a problem.0 -
As with Peregrinus, I think you need to unambiguously define what you mean by 'materialist philosophy' for the above post to have any meaning.
Fair enough, I think the Wikipedia definition is a reasonable one:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, the term physicalism is preferred over materialism by some, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.
The distinction I'd want to make is between the relatively few who've thought through the above and subscribe to it and the many who live, at least in part, as if the above is true.0 -
Yes, that's a really good point - and those of us who profess Christianity have zero excuse for such inconsistency.
One observation is that Christianity (and some other belief systems) give us a framework to understand and critique such an attitude. I would question whether an atheist has the same advantage, and in fact you could argue that a materialist philosophy is entirely consistent with atheism.
As an agnostic, my observation of Atheists is that maybe 90% just get on with it and are not all sjw or emotionally attached to their lack of belief.
The other ten percent are obsessed with religious scandals, sexuality, education and politics.
They use Atheism as a hammer to dish out their hatred of God, organised religion, especially Christianity for some odd reason.
They love winding theists up and if you're an atheist or agnostic and don't tow their line, you're an outcast because you're not as bitter or awkward as them.
I tend to stay away from discussion with Atheists who are smart asses, have egocentrism and just downright trools bird's of a feather flock together and fools seldom differ.
Why discuss your God or religion with people who are not willing to understand your beliefs and it's quite clear that they're only taking the preverbial.
Agnostics tend to be less argumentive and more engaging, while that 10% of Atheists are angry, confrontational and just lacking lustre for common ground in a debate.
The 90% of Atheists out there just don't believe in God and that's it, they're not trolling internet forums slagging off thiests, and blaming religion for all the problems in the world, it's not religion that's the problem it's people who are problematic and that's another debate.
Atheists won't entertain that they have a materialist philosophy, because to them it's a judgement or something to bandy about for week's having circular arguments and winding up agnostics and thiests in their own "SAFE SPACE" .....
I've no fact's to back up my post, it's just a personal observation.0 -
When I talk about materialism I’m talking about “the theory or belief that that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications”. This is close to physicalism as per your link - the belief that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical. And, yeah, physicalism might be the better term, because materialism has a different sense; [excessive?] preoccupation with material things.
Obviously the two are linked; if you think that only material things really exist, then obviously you are likely also to think that only material things matter, because how can non-existent things be of any importance? So perhaps a physicalist (in the metaphysical sense) is likely to be a materialist (in the moral sense).
(This is not so say that a physicalist materialist must be selfish or immoral. I might devote myself to raising the material condition of the poor because (a) in my materialist worldview that is the greatest benefit and (b) I wish to benefit them.)
Is the reverse true? If we observe someone to be a materialist can we conclude that he is likely to be a physicalist? Well, in one sense no; it’s easy to find examples of people who profess strong beliefs in non-material realities who nevertheless attach great importance to the accumulation of possessions, wealth, power, etc (whether selfishly for themselves or for others or for the community at large.)
In another sense, though, maybe it is. Aristotle suggested that we could inculcate virtue in our children (and in ourselves) by fostering the practice of virtue; if you engage in morally just behaviour you cultivate and internalise in yourself the beliefs and values that underpin that behaviour. And something similar may be true here; if we live as though all that really mattered was the acquisition of material security and wealth then we come to believe that; arguably we may already believe it, because why else are we living that way?
The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that a lot of people who think they are (e.g.) Christians are in fact not; their true faith is not in the saving grace of Jesus Christ but in the material security that money and status buys, and this is seen from the choices that they make in life. And in fact there’s a long tradition in Christianity going right back to the gospels which points out exactly this. The contrary position is that this is too binary a view; wealth and grace are not necessarily opposed. And at the other extreme you have a view that is precisely opposite; wealth is a grace, and if a faithful Christian, or a Christian society, is wealthy it’s because God has made him, or it, wealthy; the “prosperity gospel”.
The problem of wealth is a major preoccupation of the gospels and, the more wealthy we become, or the more wealthy a Christian community becomes, the more embarrassing this is. A common reaction is to avoid confronting the problem by becoming preoccupied with something else, typically sex, and there is a view that this accounts, or partly accounts, for the growth of puritanism in Christian-but-capitalist societies. It’s notable that the Christian right in US politics (and perhaps in our own) is very much preoccupied with public policy around matters sex, gender, sexuality, reproduction and sexual orientation, and rather less so with public policy on caring for the widow and the orphan, welcoming the stranger, liberating the captive, filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich empty away.
Which maybe brings me back to the question that this thread is supposed to be addressing; is the possibility of God not a scary thought? Well, if God exists and if he actually means what he says through the gospels about wealth then perhaps we, the wealthiest generation of Christians ever, have reason to be scared.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fair enough, I think the Wikipedia definition is a reasonable one:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, the term physicalism is preferred over materialism by some, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.
The distinction I'd want to make is between the relatively few who've thought through the above and subscribe to it and the many who live, at least in part, as if the above is true.
I'd argue that all true Atheists must have base their stance in Materialism or it is unjustified. Personally I cant subscribe to it as we know that immaterial things exist, for example there are infinite prime numbers etc. Logic is a system that exists independently of physical reality yet we utilise it everyday. Then we can look at Godel and there is evidence that rules in our 'system' can only be explained by a higher order of logic. So again, the supposed empiricism many Atheists use to support their own perspective or even attack Theists isn't strong enough.0 -
one world order wrote: »We have free will to choose, we are either with Jesus or with the Devil.
I've often tried to invoke the Devil along the lines of "Here come take my soul". For a price.
Not even a really expensive price, just a few quid.
It's a really good deal for him/her/it.
Surprisingly oul Nick has never taken me up on it.0 -
-
ticklemonster wrote: »I'd argue that all true Atheists must have base their stance in Materialism or it is unjustified. Personally I cant subscribe to it as we know that immaterial things exist, for example there are infinite prime numbers etc.
By that logic you would assert that atheists deny the existence of prime numbers which is clearly a nonsense. As per a number of my previous posts, there are many immaterial things that form part of our reality that are entirely independent from a belief in a god or gods and hence are as real to the atheist as the theist.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Obviously the two are linked; if you think that only material things really exist, then obviously you are likely also to think that only material things matter, because how can non-existent things be of any importance?
I would suggest that there are very few people who would consider the entirety of their reality is composed of, or can be meaningfully decomposed to, the purely physical. If anything, as a species, we are generating and contending with the purely abstract, theoretical or plain imaginary on an ever increasing basis. One could mistakenly confuse immaterial and supernatural here, as illustrated in ticklemonster's last post.
;So perhaps a physicalist (in the metaphysical sense) is likely to be a materialist (in the moral sense).
;Well, if God exists and if he actually means what he says through the gospels about wealth then perhaps we, the wealthiest generation of Christians ever, have reason to be scared.
I think you may have answered yourself there. While one would like to think the essence of Christianity is to care for one's fellow man and reject materialism in the moral sense, the reality is that this is not the case nor has it been so for most of the history of Christendom. There are without doubt many notable exceptions, but I suspect you would have a hard time illustrating that Christians are less prone to become enamored with material wealth than anyone else.
Edit: Great post by the way, I hadn't come across that take on puritanism as a result of wealth before. Makes sense.0 -
Advertisement
-
By that logic you would assert that atheists deny the existence of prime numbers which is clearly a nonsense. As per a number of my previous posts, there are many immaterial things that form part of our reality that are entirely independent from a belief in a god or gods and hence are as real to the atheist as the theist.
Are you a thiest, agnostic or athiest ?
Just wondering, because you're a moderator on both forums .0 -
CountNjord wrote: »Are you a thiest, agnostic or athiest ?
Just wondering, because you're a moderator on both forums .
I'm an atheist, though I don't consider it a particularly useful term. I'd more tend to consider myself a secularist.0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »If you believe that a God is omnipotent then how can you conclude that everything has not happened exactly as it planned?
Even omnipotence doesn't allow you to make a square circle. Nor can creating a free willed being mean the being will chose the route you'd prefer they chose.
Look up the word and how Christians understand it.0 -
For what it's worth, this is where I stand:
In chapter 8 Paul has shown that the church of Jesus Christ now enjoys the promises made to Israel. In chapters 9-11, as you have said, he now asks whether the promises to ethnic Israel will be fulfilled.
I know we've talked about Romans 9 before and you see it differently, which is fine. In short, I think it's a mistake to see Romans 9-11 as only referring to ethnic Israel - Paul also has salvation in view. A few quick points on this if I may:
Salvation in view. Okay..
[LIST]
[*]Verse 11 is key as it contrasts works and calling, which means that salvation is in view and not just the destiny of Israel as a nation.
I would agree that if you belong to spiritual Israel you are saved. But the argument is about God sovereignly deciding that Israel (or his people) will consist of spiritual jews.
You don't get to be a spiritual jew by works but by being called..whatever that means isn't made clear here.
We can draw some conclusions about salvation by extrpolating from what spirirual Israel contains (e.g. the saved). That God choses that his people are drawn from the pool of humanity called 'spiritual jew' doesn't tell us how they came to be thus. Not by works but by calling[*]The example Paul gives in verses 11 and 12 is God's choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau. They represent their respective nations, for sure, but they are also individuals.
Yes. We might surmise that one was a spiritual jew or that God looking forward in time knew they would become a spirotual jew. And so chose the one to represent the strand 'spiritual Israel.
We cannot say that God chose to save the one and not the other however.[*]In verse 14 and following, Paul answers the question of whether this is just on God's part - neither Jacob nor Esau had done anything good or bad when they were chosen / rejected.
[*]Verse 16 - it (i.e. salvation) doesn't depend on human will or effort.
[/LIST]
Which is fine. There is still no reason to conclude God chosing to upset the apple cart in terms of older serving younger means he chose to save the younger and not the older.
Do you see the difference?This all makes sense in terms of the wider context, for two reasons:
1. One of the promises made to Israel was election / adoption
You are free to argue where else in scripture election and adoption means God choses to save one and not the other. In the context of Romans 9 however, there is nothing to indicate the means of salvation to involve God chosing who and who not to save. The context (which answers a valid objection) is God chosing that his people be spiritual and not physical Israel. That choice, just as with twins, upsets the apple cart.2. Paul's whole point is that not all who are part of ethnic Israel are part of the true, spiritual Israel - hence salvation through faith rather than by virtue of belonging to a certain nation or people group.
Agreed. But we are focusing not on salvation by faith and not works - that we both agree on. We are focusing on your contention that God choses who to save.
We might say and can say that he choses to save spiritual Israelites. You are going further and saying he choses to make people spiritual jews. That is not in the text - the text saying, in effect, that he choses to save spiritual jews.The final thing to bear in mind is who Paul is writing this to, i.e. a church made up of both gentile and non-gentile Christians. Chapters 9-11 aren't merely a theological treatise on the fate of ethnic Israel, but are clearly applicable to those contemporary Christians as well, flowing out of chapter 8 and on into chapters 12-16
That's a bit too broad brush. If 9 doesn't contain an argument that God choses to save this one and not that one (and it doesn't say he did in the case of the twins) then we leave 9 aside and go look where else you think the argument is made.The doctrine of election does not stand or fall on the basis of how we understand Romans 9. Other important references are John 6:37-39, 44, 64-66; 8:47; 10:26; 15:16; Acts 13:48; 16:14; 1 John 4:19; 5:1. It also fits into the wider context of how the bible views salvation, moving us from dead in sins to glorified in Christ, and everything in between. It also connects to how we view God, and what it means for him to be sovereign.
Again, a bit too broad brush. God choses to save this one and not that one. Where is this. It's not in 9. His sovereign choice described in 9 concerns physical Israels replacement. He is entitled to save according to the criteria of his choosing. And spiritual Istaelited it happens to be.
You need to show a second choice - his choosing who to make a spiritual jew. They can then avail if his choice to save spiritual jews.Hopefully I've given a fairly clear answer to this above, i.e. that nothing is being shoehorned in and it's all of a piece - Romans 9-11 refers to both ethnic Israel and the means of salvation for his original audience (and us).
How do you think someone enters spiritual Israel?
The trouble is the 'and'. It is clear the piece deals with Gods choice as to who his people will be. You 'and' in another choice: him choosing to make certain people citizens of spiritual Israel. This 'and' has no in-chapter support. The twins ain't it - no mention of their salvation at all.
Someone enters spiritual Israel by faith. I would hold (as does the bible) that faith is believing what God says (e.g. Abraham, the father and commentary first order of what 'by faith' means)
If you believe God according to the.model of Abraham, then you are saved by faith.
Im a nutshell, Abrahams model involves a man coming to the end of his ability to self-direct his life. He has, in other words come to the end of the Adamic road.
Pretty simple really: the self directed life we were born into is the original sin/problem separating us from God. It's not too far fetched to suppose the resolution of the problem involves our surrendering our self directed lives.
God tries to cause us to surrender: trouble, pain, guilt, anguish, lack of meaning... approaching death dogs man are the means whereby we might be brought to the end of ourself
If we are brought to surrender we achieve salvation. For to surrender the self directed life, to curse it and hate it and wish we could escape it, is to believe God.
Abraham found this: he self directed his way to his hearts desire for an heir and look what it brought him. Abraham surrendered and believed God.
No chosing by God is required. And no choosing by man. Men don't choose to surrender, they are forced to.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »perhaps we, the wealthiest generation of Christians ever, have reason to be scared.
Scared isn't quite how I'd put it. The saved being called to give account of themselves might be sobered by the thought if they misused their wealth. But scared?
Besides, wealth brings with it many trials that people in less wealthy times didn't have to face. I don't think that teen suicide or children accessing porn were problems of earlier times.
Dying of hunger or disease or dying with long tormented mind by own hand. Which is a wealthier death?0 -
Nope. I don't take issue with religions openly advocating their belief system once they're accepting that others are equally free to advocate different and often contrary ideas. State sponsored religions are where I'd have a problem.
What's the difference between state sponsored Religion and state sponsered support of a pholosophy which supposes the unborn less worthwhile than born humans?
Religion and philosophy are mere worldviews to which the respective believers adhere and steer their life.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »What's the difference between state sponsored Religion and state sponsered support of a pholosophy which supposes the unborn less worthwhile than born humans?
One of them is in place as a direct result of democratic process.0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Scared isn't quite how I'd put it. The saved being called to give account of themselves might be sobered by the thought if they misused their wealth. But scared?
Besides, wealth brings with it many trials that people in less wealthy times didn't have to face. I don't think that teen suicide or children accessing porn were problems of earlier times.
Dying of hunger or disease or dying with long tormented mind by own hand. Which is a wealthier death?
Not wanting to belittle teen suicide in any way but comparison to preventable death due to poverty related death is a false equivalence. Globally, there are slightly less than 800,000 cases of suicide per year. By comparison, in 2019 Unicef tells us that 7.4 million people under the age of 25 died from preventable causes and the WHO tells us that 3.1 million children die each year from malnutrition. A more striking comparison here perhaps would be obesity related deaths which stand at 2.8 million per year.
I don't know about you, but to me that says pretty clearly that we desperately need a more a more equitable division of wealth, even more so should you embrace a philosophy that eschews greed, as is the case with Christianity.0 -
Not wanting to belittle teen suicide in any way but comparison to preventable death due to poverty related death is a false equivalence. Globally, there are slightly less than 800,000 cases of suicide per year. By comparison, in 2019 Unicef tells us that 7.4 million people under the age of 25 died from preventable causes and the WHO tells us that 3.1 million children die each year from malnutrition. A more striking comparison here perhaps would be obesity related deaths which stand at 2.8 million per year.
I don't know about you, but to me that says pretty clearly that we desperately need a more a more equitable division of wealth, even more so should you embrace a philosophy that eschews greed, as is the case with Christianity.
There's always been a need for a better distribution of wealth. The biblical year of Jubilee every 50 years, when land was returned to original tribal owners, after being dissipated through the desire folk had to accumulate, shows the problem to be age old. God's solution wasn't a bad one.
My point was that: attempting to show we are 'better off'these days is a bit of a fools errand.
Every advance (not to talk of the brink it appears we've advanced ourselves to) can be arguably offset by a regression.
Early years being raised by own parents vs. early years being raised in industrial childcare? Progress?0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »My point was that: attempting to show we are 'better off'these days is a bit of a fools errand.
I strongly disagree. Taking the child mortality rates discussed previously as an empirical example we see the following;
Interactive source here. There is without a doubt a lot wrong with our world, how we treat it and how we treat each other, but I suspect you're looking at the past through rose tinted glasses. Things were much worse for most people in the past. There are also extinction risks, such as climate change, but I for one have the faith in humanity that we will overcome them.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Salvation in view. Okay...
This doesn't sound convincing to me - God sovereignly chooses to save the group, but not the individuals that make up that group?
Like I said before, I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that Paul is talking about both Israel as a nation and about individual salvation (and God's part in it) in these verses. This is emphasised by the language Paul uses throughout this paragraph in chapter nine: reckoned, election, purpose, works, calls - all of which generally refer to eternal salvation. Also remember, it is this very issue - the fact that so many Jews have not been saved through the gospel - that has sparked the whole discussion in the first place
I would conclude that Paul is talking here about God's sovereignty in salvation. God's love for Jacob and hate for Esau are therefore a way of sharply contrasting God's election to salvation and his exclusion from salvation.antiskeptic wrote: »No chosing by God is required. And no choosing by man. Men don't choose to surrender, they are forced to.
Hmm, I'm not sure about your logic here or about where you find scriptural justification for this. If we don't choose and he doesn't choose us, how does anyone come to faith at all?0 -
I strongly disagree. Taking the child mortality rates discussed previously as an empirical example we see the following;
Interactive source here. There is without a doubt a lot wrong with our world, how we treat it and how we treat each other, but I suspect you're looking at the past through rose tinted glasses. Things were much worse for most people in the past. There are also extinction risks, such as climate change, but I for one have the faith in humanity that we will overcome them.
That's the difference between us. I don't think we will. I concluded this long before I became a Christian when the realisation of the rate of dwindling of finite resources became known to me.
Some might suppose we'll mine Mars to keep the consumption show going. Me, I think there'll be a lot of what there usually is between men, when there's not enough to go round. War.
Faith that we'll figure out climate change (so that huge chunk of mankind aren't 'driven back' to the times you suppose so awful) assumes we are not already over the side of a cliff.
Quite why you'd have faith in promises and intentions timed to occur in 2050 (a.k.a. a can kicked far down the road) is a surprising thing. Surely you know that empires decline due to sloth and corruption. That's us right now, the empire of consumerism to which we are addicted. We have systems of government in which there is no incentive or payback in taking hard decisions now so as to invest in 2050. To invest would be to extract a soother from firmly clenched teeth.
Fiddle around the edges with your wind energy whilst cramming the roads with electric cars on their way to shopping malls.
Braking only works when the incline is clement.0 -
This doesn't sound convincing to me - God sovereignly chooses to save the group, but not the individuals that make up that group?
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.
Romans 9 describes Gods choice as to what to do with the 46A. There is nothing there about his choosing who gets on the bus.
The twins case doesn't deal with salvation (in the sense that you can extract that meaning from the passage itself). Nor the case of Pharoah.Like I said before, I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that Paul is talking about both Israel as a nation and about individual salvation (and God's part in it) in these verses
You would have to be more specific. Take this:This is emphasised by the language Paul uses throughout this paragraph in chapter nine: reckoned, election, purpose, works, calls - all of which generally refer to eternal salvation.
What you are doing, I think, is bringing in doctrine from elsewhere and laying it onto the passage. The words: reckoned, purpose, election ... don't in themselves imply God choses who to save. You'd have to have formed that view elsewhere .. in which case go there and show the case. Romans 9 in itself doesn't make the case.
Of course salvation is being talked of in roundabout - spiritual Israel are the saved. And you don't get to be a spiritual Israelite by works. But talking about the bus, about the destination of the bus and how those on the bus didn't come to be on the bus by works .. is not talk of how they got on it.
Call is not enough to conclude God chose them. Its just one word and a doctrine cannot be made from one word
That is not of works is fine. That it is of him who calls is fine. But him who calls doesn't necessarily mean God choses. What if someone opts not to answer the call?
Much more is needed.Also remember, it is this very issue - the fact that so many Jews have not been saved through the gospel - that has sparked the whole discussion in the first place
The issue is the switching. God's chosen people are not physical Israel. It had been assumed to be so. But isn't so - God chose otherwise. That's the piece - dealing with an objection.I would conclude that Paul is talking here about God's sovereignty in salvation. God's love for Jacob and hate for Esau are therefore a way of sharply contrasting God's election to salvation and his exclusion from salvation.
Except there is no mention of his choice in regard to them having anything to do with their personal salvation. That's an imported idea until shown otherwise from elsewhere. The older shall serve the younger cannot be taken to mean salvation. Their representing lines (spiritual amd physical) cannot be taken to mean God chose to save them either. As I said, God can know they would be saved and make the choice to have the saved on represent the spiritual line.
Do you see the difference:
- chosen to head the line because they were saved /would be saved by other means
- chose to save AND chose to place as representatives of the spiritual line.
Which it is isn't shown in passage. It is being assumed to be the latter.Hmm, I'm not sure about your logic here or about where you find scriptural justification for this. If we don't choose and he doesn't choose us, how does anyone come to faith at all?
You don't have to chose for something to obtain that something. If you are placed on a path that trundles to the 46A bus stop, there is no chosing involved in your being placed on that path.
You can chose to divert off the path however. In which case you will not catch the 46A
There is no scriptural justification for God chosing to save (I'll warrant - its not shown in Romans 9 and I'd wager not anywhere else). There is no scriptural justification for our chosing God either.
There is scriptural justification for our willing it not however. Our refusing the call. Our getting stepping off the path that leads to the bus stop of salvation.
For that is how I see it work. All men will be saved (all are placed by God on a path which will bring them to the 46A), unless they will to leave the path
Oh Jersusalem, Jerusalem, how I longed to gather you under my wings... but you WILLED it NOT.
More directly:
They REFUSED to believe the truth and so be saved.
Refusal is an act of will. Not unto salvation, since willing unto salvation is excluded scripturally. Refusal is willing unto damnation. That is not excluded scripturally
The truth is there. Men know the truth (says scripture). But they refuse to believe it. They suppress, evade, run away from, believe the lie instead of the truth. All means to refuse to believe.
Naturally, if you don't refuse (which is not willing for, its just not willing against) then believe the truth you inevitably will.
-
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.
But this other way, where man wills his destruction by refusal, works fine. Salvation, if it occurs, is down to the work and effort of God. God attempting to gather chicks under wings. God presenting us every day with truth. So says scripture.
Damnation, if it occurs, is down to the will of man. So too says scripture.
Take smacl's rose tinted view of the trajectory of mankind in the posts following this. Mankind is corrupt, mankind rapes and pillaged the world, makind holds on the what he can grab and be damned if folk starve mankind holds on to whatever he can by point of a gun. Unto murder. We see it every day in the news.
Yet smacl refuses to believe this glaring truth. And believes the lie: that man ain't a bad sort all told. And that we'll get there in the end.
Not a shred of evidence for the view, and overwhelming evidence, drumbeat evidence of all history. Nevertheless he believes the lie.
God as meek, God as longing, God not wanting that any perish, God as long suffering, God as concerned mother hen, God as love.
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.."
God prepared to dive down to the very bottom of a fetid barrel in the effort to retrieve us. The cross tells us that this is the kind of god God is.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »That's the difference between us. I don't think we will. I concluded this long before I became a Christian when the realisation of the rate of dwindling of finite resources became known to me.
Some might suppose we'll mine Mars to keep the consumption show going. Me, I think there'll be a lot of what there usually is between men, when there's not enough to go round. War.
Faith that we'll figure out climate change (so that huge chunk of mankind aren't 'driven back' to the times you suppose so awful) assumes we are not already over the side of a cliff.
Quite why you'd have faith in promises and intentions timed to occur in 2050 (a.k.a. a can kicked far down the road) is a surprising thing. Surely you know that empires decline due to sloth and corruption. That's us right now, the empire of consumerism to which we are addicted. We have systems of government in which there is no incentive or payback in taking hard decisions now so as to invest in 2050. To invest would be to extract a soother from firmly clenched teeth.
Fiddle around the edges with your wind energy whilst cramming the roads with electric cars on their way to shopping malls.
Braking only works when the incline is clement.
You could well be right, only time will tell. While climate change could well pose the greatest threat humanity has faced as a species, in my opinion at worst case it will prove to be a major culling event rather than an extinction event. I'd agree that excessive consumerism is also a problem, where as a global population we need to limit consumption to what can be renewed. Global population growth is also a major part of the problem here where we need to plan future population size. This is also clearly an issue of dogma for any religion that advocates for exponential population growth, where the notion of 'go forth and multiply' is long past its sell by date. I think Hans Rosling's take on this is both compassionate and sensible, where enabling planned parenthood coupled with improved education in the worlds poorest countries is the way forward. Likewise a more equitable distribution of wealth across the worlds population.
I choose to remain stoical about the future of humanity, believe that for our many faults we are moving slowly in the right direction, and that we are adaptable enough to not just survive but to flourish going forward. The whole 'end is nigh' thing has been repeated ad nauseum for decades if not centuries, and no doubt will continue to be repeated for generations to come.0 -
You could well be right, only time will tell. While climate change could well pose the greatest threat humanity has faced as a species, in my opinion at worst case it will prove to be a major culling event rather than an extinction event.
You play Fortnite? If not, the game is set on an island map, where a storm encircling the island closes slowly and gradually towards the centre, forcing players closer together, the fight ending in a last man standing.
Such would it be. The storm of global warming causing all kinds of pressure on food supply, water supply, migration, resource depletion, uprising.
You will not stop mankind moving en masse, save for a Trumpian wall on which machine guns. And those in less affected areas will demand those walls be built and will demand it be equipped with machine guns.
The main problem is our ability to wage war and our preparedness to use wmd even when our way of life and existence is far from threatened.
I can assure you, if someone handed a Fortnite player a very powerful and very dangerous weapon in the closing stages of the game it would be used in the fight for survival. Everyone wants to be last man standing - however achieved.
I see no basis in the hope that things will end in a cull. People will do whatever it takes not to be one of the culled.I'd agree that excessive consumerism is also a problem, where as a global population we need to limit consumption to what can be renewed.
It can't happen. Population will be limited by outside events like a cull, not by policy decision (save forced culling of the aged, sick etc). You cannot renew. Wind and sea might be boundless in their provision, the earths resources simply not. There are untold amounts of materials used in modern day items that simply cannot be retrieved. What are you going to do with all the tiny components that makes up the tonnes of printed circuit boards that comprise even McDonalds Happy Meal throwaway toys? Break them open and retrieve all the many.materials to go into making them up? No way. They are lost forever.
You end consumerism as you reduce population. By force. Scarcity, price rises and the like will cramp consumerism - with addicts demanding their governments do what it takes to keep the gravy train rolling all the way down. They do it already with the scrabble for resources, installing puppet governments, assassinating activists and journalists so that we can have cheap fuel, hardwood furniture and cheap clothes.
No reason for that to change until it can go on no more.Global population growth is also a major part of the problem here where we need to plan future population size. This is also clearly an issue of dogma for any religion that advocates for exponential population growth, where the notion of 'go forth and multiply' is long past its sell by date.
Pretty much irrelevant. The fight for resources might be stretched out by controlling populations but it only kicks the can down the road.
Humanity has never once come together before for the universal good. It does the oppposite in fact with perpetual war. You are imagining cooperation on a global scale with absolute zero precedence for something on this scale.
There are too many obstacles. To many vested interests. Too many who prefer life as it is. We want more. Not less. We are not geared to think less amd never have been.where enabling planned parenthood coupled with improved education in the worlds poorest countries is the way forward. Likewise a more equitable distribution of wealth across the worlds population.
Its not going to happen for the same reason it has never happened. Those with would have to cough up and those with won't. Not on your nelly
I don't mean the super rich who have the means of influencing and controlling to make sure they hang onto wealth/power. I mean us. The man on the street.
Do you really think the average Irish person would vote to take a 30% hit on living standards so that the wealth can be more equitably spread? Pay a tenner for their skinny latte so that a coffer farmer could buy a 2020 Audi A4?I choose to remain stoical about the future of humanity, believe that for our many faults we are moving slowly in the right direction, and that we are adaptable enough to not just survive but to flourish going forward.
I choose to listen to the protagonist in the book of Ecclesiastes. That there is nothing new under the sun and never will be. Mankind does as he has always. Except we are running down a steeper slope of our own construction.
Species destruction, habitat destruction, climate destruction, resources destruction (Happy.Meal toys only underscoring the depth of our plight). Always happening .. but now on industrial scale.
Even our economic models demand more. Growth is what its all about and constriction worked against with all our might. That is not going to be overturned because the underlying demand is for more, not less.
But somehow we're on the path to a solution, without a shred of historical precedence. That is a religious faith smacl. Blind.The whole 'end is nigh' thing has been repeated ad nauseum for decades if not centuries, and no doubt will continue to be repeated for generations to come.
The end has already come. We died in the garden of Eden. It was there that self interest unto murder was birthed in us. And it won't die until we are no more.
What you're talking of is a corpse. We're just talking how fast it cools down to become a cold and clammy one.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »You play Fortnite? If not, the game is set on an islans map, where a storm encircling the island closes slowly and gradually towards the centre, forcing players closer together, the fight ending in a last man standing.
Such would it be. Climate causing all kinds of pressure on food supply water supply, migration, uprising. You will not stop mankind moving en masse, save for a Trumpian wall on which machine guns. And those in less affected areas will demand those walls be built and will demand it be equipped with machine guns.
The main problem is our ability to wage war and our preparedness to use wmd even when our way of life and existence is far from threatened.
I can assure you, if someone handed a fortnite player a very powerful and very dangerous weapon in the closing stages of fortnite, it would be used in the fight for survival.
I see no basis in the hope that things will end in a cull.
Not a fortnite player, nor would I consider it reasonable to speculate on how the future of mankind will pan out based on a kids video game.It can't happen. Population will be limited by outside events like a cull, not by policy decision (save forced culling of the aged, sick etc). You cannot renew. Wind and sea might be boundless in their provision, the eartg simply not. There are untold amounts of materials used in modern day items that simply cannot be retrieved. What are you going to do with all the tiny components that makes up the tonnes of printed circuit boards that comprise even McDonalds Happy Meal throwaway toys? Break them open and retrieve all the many.materials to go into making them up?
You end consumerism as you reduce population. By force. Scarcity, price will cramp consumerism - with addicts demanding their governments do what it takes to keep the gravy train rolling all the way down. They do it already with the scrabble for resources, installing puppet governments, assassinating activists and journalists so that we can have cheap fuel hardwood furniture and cheap clothes
No reason for that to change until it can go on no more.
On the contrary, the planet can support a certain population size based entirely on renewable materials. It is capitalist driven consumerism with mechanisms such as planned obsolescence and replace rather than repair that is forcing excessive resource consumption. As you rightly point out, we'll reach a point where that is no longer sustainable at which point change will be forced whether we like it or not. What we don't know are the population limits which can be sustained based entirely on renewables but there is no logical reason to suppose such limits do no exist.Pretty much irrelevant. The fight for resources might be stretched out by controlling populations but it only kicks the can down the road.
Humanity has never once come together before for the universal good. It does the oppposite in fact with perpetual war. You are imagining cooperation on a global scale with absolute zero precedence for something on this scale.
There are too many obstacles. To many vested interests.
That's an interesting point in the context of Christianity. I would have thought many Christians would consider their ethos is served by underpinning the greater good of humanity, albeit on their own terms. Looking at organisations such as the WHO and the UNHCR, I would say at a secular level, humanity is also more collectively concerned with the greater good than at any time in its history.Its not going to happen for the same reason it has never happened. Those with would have to cough up and those with won't. Not on your nelly
I don't mean the super rich who have the.means of influencing amd controlling to make sure they hang onto wealth/power. I mean us.
Do you really think the average Irish person would vote to take a 30% hit on living standards so that the wealth can be more equitably spread? Pay a tenner for their skinny latte so that a coffer farmer could buy a 2020 Audi A4?
I see a lot of Irish people drinking Fair Trade coffee these days, also a very recent phenomenon.I choose to listen to the protagonist in the book of Ecclesiastes. That there is nothing new under the sun and never will be. Mankind does as he has always. Except we are running down a steeper slope of our own construction.
Species destruction, habitat destruction, climate destruction, resources destruction (Happy.Meal toys only underscoring the depth of our plight). Always happening but now on industrial scale.
But somehow we're on the path to a solution, without a shred of historical precedence. That is a religious faith smacl. Blind.
The end has already come. We died in the garden of Eden.
What you're talking of is a corpse. We're just talking how fast it cools down to become a cold and clammy one
I disagree, I've already provided example metrics on how the world is slowly improving for the worst off among us. If you excuse the pun, you seem hell bent on doom and gloom and humanities demise. As I've said, I take a more stoical view on things. None of us knows the future, but I think you greatly underestimate the resilience of humankind.0 -
Not a fortnite player, nor would I consider it reasonable to speculate on how the future of mankind will pan out based on a kids video game.
Ever decreasing room to manoevre isn't exactly the stuff of video games. Nor is the response of participants to that constriction. The game stems from life as we know itJim.On the contrary, the planet can support a certain population size based entirely on renewable materials
The only practically limitless resources I can think of are things like water, sun, wind, sea. Everything else is finite and much, like computer chips, not retrievable back to input materials.
You didn't put a figure on how small the population or how long it would last if smaller. Sure, we could go back to 500,000 people on the planet and last practically forever. Certainly if we went caveman and forwent all the stuff that isn't renewable
But you don't provide a roadmap that circumvents the direction history demonstrates things will take.. It is capitalist driven consumerism with mechanisms such as planned obsolescence and replace rather than repair that is forcing excessive resource consumption.
And our desire for new. I'm sure plenty of people have a perfectly.good smartphone sitting in a drawer somewhere in their houses.As you rightly point out, we'll reach a point where that is no longer sustainable at which point change will be forced whether we like it or not. What we don't know are the population limits which can be sustained based entirely on renewables but there is no logical reason to suppose such limits do no exist.
If you got rid if the west entire that'd be a start. The unfortunate thing is that we've 5 billion people who don't megaconsume all clamouring at the consumption door. They may have little but they do have access to TV's and satellite dishes so know what the target is.
Take China. A billion + people who didn't consume, on the road to Western level consumption. And the West on an upward trajectory.
The idea that there'll be a soft landing where folk peacefully withdraw from consumption (the West) and the rest listen to the West telling them 'sorry, we gobbled it all up you'll have to stay where you are and (haha) let us decline to where you are..'
That's fantastical.
There is one hope. Its takes lots of poor people living on buttons to provide for Western consumption. Either we keep them poor so as to continie as we are. Or do withoiut the pool of poor. Price rise will curb consumption. Depends on whether the West will allow the poor to raise standards of living. I see little incentive. We must forgo growth models of economy. Which means recession/ regression. Not many vote for that. Its the economy, stupid.That's an interesting point in the context of Christianity. I would have thought many Christians would consider their ethos is served by underpinning the greater good of humanity, albeit on their own terms. Looking at organisations such as the WHO and the UNHCR, I would say at a secular level, humanity is also more collectively concerned with the greater good than at any time in its history.
Scratching at the surface. What does the West give? 5% of GNP towards wealth redistribution. And when things get tight they start closing the tap.. as the UK did recently. Their ain't no votes in sending money to little brown people.
In the meantime you've Western corporations and the Chinese hoovering up everything they can get their hands on. You have UNCHR mopping up the consequences of Western rape and pillage. You've US imperialism deposing governments so as to get their hands on other countries resources (Iraq then, Venezuela now).
I see a lot of Irish people drinking Fair Trade coffee these days, also a very recent phenomenon.
Puny. From an overflowing cup a pittance given?I disagree, I've already provided example metrics on how the world is slowly improving for the worst off among us. If you excuse the pun, you seem hell bent on doom and gloom and humanities demise. As I've said, I take a more stoical view on things. None of us knows the future, but I think you greatly underestimate the resilience of humankind.
Compare child mortality in the West vs Africa in 1950 to now. The gap has widened. We, not surprisingly, are doing a lot better than them.
I don't think resilience will help withstand a bullet. The question is whether we will go peacefully or will we go to war.
You got the US empire with a string necklace of military bases situated around the coast of China. You have China, not unsurprisingly balking at the idea of a gun to their forehead, taking its own defensive/aggressive steps.
There is no precedence for peacefully. Quite the contrary, in times past and right up to the present militaristic day.0 -
Relax, There is no God. This is just my view, So not a banning offence. Why no sign in 2000 years from the man himself ? Not a dickiebird. How was his every word on Earth recorded when then it had to be chiseled in stone ? Why no new priests ? Why all the cover ups ? why is the church almost gone in Ireland bar a few elderely Priests and mass goer's ?
We were sold a pup, all made up.
Accept it and move on. Nothing to see here...0 -
Advertisement
-
Relax, There is no God. This is just my view, So not a banning offence.
Mod: It is however a breach of the forum charter, which I recommend you read before posting here again.
"5. Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." or "The Bible is full of contradictions, therefore..." will not be tolerated. Don't start off with a conclusion which your audience is bound to disagree with!"
Note that ignorance of the charter is not an excuse. Please do not respond in thread, any questions via PM or via the feedback thread. Thanks for your attention.0 -
"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