I recently posted an essay on my blog–Does God Play Duck-Duck-Goose?–where I argue that, at the end of the day, Christian soteriological positions tend to be either Arminian in nature or a form of double predestination. At the end of the post, having puzzled through the logic of Reformed doctrines of election, I conclude by saying that one has to choose between these two options. Either we exercise choice in responding to God or God predestines us to be saved or damned. The argument I make is provocative as many Christians, particularly thoughtful Reformed believers, want to find a middle ground. My essay is an attempt to show why I don’t think there is any middle ground.
So where do I fall out? My sensibilities are Arminian due to the tradition I was raised in. I guess you can say that I’m an Arminian Universalist. I don’t think God elects (or regenerates) some while damning others. Like all Arminians I believe that it is God’s sovereign will to save all of humanity. Where I part with traditional Arminian thinking is in my rejection of the belief that death is stronger than God’s grace and love. Traditional Arminian thinking believes that death is more powerful than God, that once death occurs God can do…nothing.
So basically I concur with Arminians that our movement to God is an act of choice rather than an act of volitional coercion, election or regeneration. In light of that, the thing I think needs to be added to Arminianism is an eschatological imagination. God’s sovereignty is less about election than about time. In the biblical imagination this notion that God is Lord of Time is captured in the claim that Jesus now holds the Keys to Death and Hades. That is, the Arminian focus on us choosing or responding to God can be retained in universalist systems if we extend the horizon of choice indefinitely.
I tend to think, here, of the Father sitting on the porch waiting for the Prodigal Son. Given enough time in the far country we’ll all, eventually, come to our senses.
Eh, there are two broad strands of traditional Arminian thought on that. One is that God cannot help after death; the other is that God chooses not to help after death. (Or at some point after death, for either variation, if post-mortem salvation is acknowledged.)
Each have strong arguments for their position, emphasizing important characteristics of God, and strong critiques of the other side for dismissing important characteristics of God.
(I’m definitely more of an Arm Kath than a Calv Kath myself. )
There is also a strong two-option debate historically within Arminianism (which doesn’t fit 1:1 with the other option set–I’ve seen different adherents of the first option set take each of the different sides on this next issue), concerning whether someone’s salvation is ever secure before death or not. The majority theory now (thanks to sparring with Calvinists) seems to be yes, this kind of security can be earned (and someone isn’t a real Christian yet without it); but there are still hardshell Arminians who take the other position that real Christians can still lose salvation up to the moment of death.
Modern Roman Catholicism (rejecting the Augustinian side of Catholic tradition in a move similar to the current Arminian Protestant majority) takes an interesting combination of those two Arminian theories: no one can be saved outside the Church (although in the past 100 years or so there has been increasing authoritative allowance for people being invisibly part of the RCC even if technically Protestant), and if someone is inducted into the Church their position is always secure, but they can still fall hugely requiring lots of purgatory time. On the position, it becomes a very interesting question as to what the RCCs think happened to Judas: strictly speaking, if he was a legitimate apostle, he should still be certainly secure even if he has to go through lots of purgatory, but official RCC tradition (after the split with the East) has always been at best they can’t say for sure–and usually that he’s hopelessly lost. That was how they regarded bishops who didn’t accept Rome’s special authoritative primacy, too: but the bishops ought to have been secure, based on current dogmatic understanding. (The argument from the relevant pope the first time this topic comes up–I researched this a few months ago but I’ve forgotten which pope–wasn’t that the Eastern bishops weren’t ever originally in the Catholic Church, but that they would be perma-damned even if they became martyrs if they rejected papal supremacy.)
Though being raised Arminian, I’ve come to be more Calvinist in my beliefs concerning salvation. The more I’ve thought of my own salvation experience, the more I’ve come to believe that it wasn’t I who chose Him but He who chose me. I was dead but He gave me life, blind but He gave me sight, enslaved but He freed me. I did not have “free will” until I was set free!
I see salvation as the Lord being a life-guard saving those who are drowning. Some people He saves cooperates with them because they are not yet overwhelmed with fear, so when Jesus throws them the life-ring, they grab on and are pulled in. Others require Him diving in as they go under the water never to rise again; He grabs them and pulls them in as they relax in His embrace. And yet others are so consumed with fear that they fight Him until He knocks them out and pulls them to shore! Once revived they thank Him, but until they are safe on shore their mind is too consumed by fear to do anything but fight Him. I was one who, because I was young and raised in a loving home, was not so consumed with fear that I recognized the life-ring tossed to me and grabbed on; but of course, I had no “choice” concerning being born with such a wonderful advantage as having loving parents who knew the Lord!
Concerning the doctrine of election, I disagree with the Calvinist perspective that election is linked with the “exclusion” of others; rather, election is for the “inclusion” of others. Israel was “elected” so as to be a blessing to all. We are elected to be ministers of reconciliation so that all can be reconciled. We are saved so that we can participate in the salvation of others, loved so that we can love others, forgiven so that we can forgive others! Election is for the inclusion of others, not exclusion.
The ones who choose rightly still have a certain something (wisdom, goodness, virtue) that those who choose wrongly don’t have. Arminians never go any deeper beyond “choice” and ask why some choose rightly. The implications may be disturbing.
We believe that grace is a sufficient motive for all to freely choose, and that some, simply through their common, God-empowered free agency can instead choose otherwise. I see little need to ask what causes this choice within The Mind, for there is no cause — that would be determinism and begging the question. There is only a sufficient influence of motives, of which we are free to weigh and accept or reject. If resistance must be caused by a certain deficiency (an absence of wisdom, goodness, virtue), we must ask whether God truly created Adam and Eve without a sin nature. I hope that makes sense.
Reason does need it, at least for those with the courage to ask, why do some say yes and others say no. Especially those of us who can’t seem to muster up the “yes” and yet are hopeful that maybe it isn’t a hopeless situation, that maybe God will come to the rescue even for those of us who for whatever reason keep saying no.
Surely it is only by God’s intervention/inspiration/guidance that anybody is capable of making a right choice? That’s what I think the Bible teaches. Consistent with this, EU writers sometimes argue that a fully informed rejection of God’s grace is inconceivable. Nobody, not even the most intelligent, well-informed and spiritually mature individual on the planet, can make a fully informed choice (try answering the questions addressed to Job in Job 38-40!). But one day everybody will be able to, thanks to God’s ability to heal and educate us and above all thanks to God’s love which never ends and never fails. So whether you come at it from a calvinist or an arminian angle, I believe there’s only one way this show is going to end
Andre, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant (my apologies for any ambiguity on my part). Reason doesn’t require us to believe that any external influence determines our choices, because we can believe that our God-empowered Mind is the only and first cause of human action. Just as nothing higher compels or causes God to act, we too are also free to act. So people weigh up their many influences (one of which is His sufficiently influential holy spirit) and choose “yes” or “no” for whatever reason they deem best, through their own (libertarian) free will. Unlike Drew, I think we could be fully informed and still reject God (Isaiah may hint at this) as I don’t think it’s entirely irrational to do so. I think we are all sufficiently informed to be saved already, for there is no deficiency in God’s grace for us not to act upon. And by “deem best” above, the measurement by which we freely choose, I suggest, is probably our own happiness. One can find much misery and happiness in both the Christ-life and the Adam-life. If one wants to maximize both their misery and happiness, I suggest one choose Christ; if one wants to minimize both, choose the other.
I don’t hope that God will come to the rescue. I believe he has come and continues to come, and people yet continue to reject his sufficient grace (I number myself amongst these people, because I don’t believe we are truly saved or justified until we are perfected through our will). I do think that God will continue to persevere beyond his judgement, and that the presence of his influence may provide us with an eternal opportunity to repent.
To elaborate a tad on my earlier comment, I don’t think the Bible ever teaches that we aren’t the first cause of our actions. And I don’t think we can truly love God (or anyone else) without being the first cause of our actions. For if our actions were caused, we would merely be the cogs of God’s own cruel narcissism, against the God of revelation in Yeshua, who out of other-oriented love, suffered and wept as they resisted (crucified!) him. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t think soft-determinism/compatibilism addresses this issue either, because it’s still determinism — albeit mildly sneakier.
Not sure if I can offer much more than what’s already been thrown in, but I figure I can give it a shot.
I guess where I fall on this issue is somewhere in the middle, maybe…
I believe that, somehow, God is in control of the world and the universe in an important and a meaningful way, and, also, somehow, man has choice, because God has given man choice, even if that choice has some limitations, because human beings by nature, as God has made us, have some limitations…
I neither believe that God is some mad puppeteer pulling all the strings, making us do good or even do bad things, programming us like robots to walk a predetermined route, come hell or high water; nor do I believe that human beings are totally free agents, without any limitations whatsoever, nor that they have to basically pull themselves up by their bootstraps without any outside help (a view that Andre/Rob was rightfully speaking out against, I think, though I’m sure that that’s not what you were saying, Andrew )…
I disagree with either extreme, as I’m sure the vast majority of people do…
I think most of us can agree that God has not made us to be robots, and I think most of us can agree that we aren’t without limitations, and that we’re not on our own…
Anyways, another perspective I have on this I’ve shared elsewhere, which I got from the film Forrest Gump…
I shared my thoughts on that in my Gospel According To The Movies thread, and here’s what I shared there:
With that said, when all is said and done, I would say that if we cannot find resolutions to such arguments as this, then it would be better to just set them aside and just focus on relating to God and to one another, which is ultimately more important anyway…
But then again, this issue can be difficult for some, as it has been for me at times, especially when you throw eternal torment into the mix… if you believe that God is in control, but can’t trust God, then that’s a bad place to be, or if you believe that you’re in control, but can’t trust yourself, then that’s just as bad of a place to be…
So at least someone needs to be able to get to a place in this age-old discussion where they can be at peace with it, a place where they can both be okay with God and okay with themselves, and be able to live their lives, and not be in peril of turning into some kind of basketcase because of these questions and the fears that may come with them…
With that said, I guess I could share some more thoughts about it…
The other night I was talking with a friend about this sort of thing over the phone, and a thought came to my mind.
I was thinking about our needs… we have needs that we are basically born with, a need for food, a need for sleep, for air, for shelter, for companionship, for love…
These are needs that we have from the beginning, through no choice of our own…
And I wonder, what about our need for God? Could this need be built into us as well, through no choice of our own, and whether we recognize it or not?
C.S. Lewis used this ‘argument from desire’ in some of his work, for instance in his classic, Mere Christianity:
Of course, Lewis is using this argument to support the existence of God, which certainly has some merit for that, I think, but maybe it could apply to the discussion of universal reconciliation as well?
Ironically, a quote that speaks to this is from Augustine, beloved defender of eternal conscious torment, who, though many of us here would disagree strongly with him in some key areas, nevertheless said some very decent things such as this:
Could there be something to this?
To put this into a more biblical context, here’s an example from Scripture:
Eternity in man’s heart? (By the way, always wondered how this particular verse would fit in with the whole eternal/aionian discussion ) And yet we do not know everything from beginning to end… sounds like a longing and aching heart to me
Anyways, here’s my thought:
God creates all of us with innate needs (and all of us with with different, unique, particular needs as well, of course, but that’s another thing and another discussion), like the need to eat, the need to sleep, the need for companionship, the need for love… and our need for Him…
Because as human beings with a broken nature we have a tendency to ignore God or forget about God or not trust Him or keep Him on the sidelines, that sort of thing, we will try to fill our need for Him, whether knowingly or unknowingly (usually unknowingly) in a number of ways, with good things like positive relationships or nature or art; with neutral things, like food or sports or entertainment; or even with destructive things, like drugs or promiscuous sex or violence… but none of these things will ever fill that ‘God-shaped hole’ that is within us… the Bible talks in many other places about our need for God…
I can’t quote verses off the top of my head, but just for instance, Jesus talked about coming as bread and water to those who were hungry and thirsty… Jesus came in part I think to remind people that they have a deep need within them that only He, and the One who sent Him, can truly answer and meet…
And here’s how I think this connects with universal reconciliation…
Jesus said that He would draw all men to Himself (a favorite verse for many of us here ), and I think that this drawing touches us in our need…
Richard, you mentioned the story of the prodigal son… I was talking about that with my friend on the phone as well…
We were kind of talking about how maybe the pig pen that the lost son found himself in was maybe kind of a picture of hell, or God’s judgment, and that was the place where he came to himself, where he repented, or turned around, which is what repentance means, and headed home…
From how I’m looking at this, I think it is our need for God, ultimately, which He has built into us (and even perhaps, for all that I know, God could not help but build that need into us, just as an artist cannot help but imprint their personality on their artwork, or a parent cannot help but pass some of their traits onto their offspring), that will eventually draw all of us to Him, and lead us into His embrace…
Where God’s sovereignty comes in is the fact that He did indeed build this need that we cannot ignore forever into us, and that that He can influence our ability to recognize that need and the answer to that need, thereby bringing us to the place where we recognize our hunger and our thirst, and recognize the One who can quell our hunger and quench our thirst… and thereby choose to move towards Him…
It was the prodigal son’s need that drove him home…
He was hungry, he was lonely, he was lost… he needed food, he needed love, he needed a home…
And that is where man’s choice comes in…
When a man eats, he is choosing to eat, but he is also meeting a need that he can’t ignore forever.
When a man sleeps, he is choosing to sleep, but he is also meeting a need that he can’t ignore forever.
When a man connects with another human being, he is choosing to connect with another human being, but he is also meeting a need that he can’t ignore forever.
And of course, a man could still choose to not seek to meet those needs, but it would be to his own detriment, and if he did not eat, he’d eventually die from starvation, if he did not sleep, he’d eventually just fall over and pass out from exhaustion anyway, if he did not seek to connect with others, he would wither internally, and perhaps start to break from reality and sanity, because of sheer loneliness… so, needless to say, a man would be something of a fool to ignore such needs forever… a man may need to ignore them for a time for some meaningful reason (fasting, overtime, solitude, etc), but trying to ignore them forever just doesn’t make any sense, because they are such powerful needs…
I believe that our need for God is on the same level as these kinds of things, greater even, but the only difference is it is more difficult, even far more difficult, in this fallen world, to be fully aware of that need, and the only way to meet that need… but what if God made us more aware of our need, and more aware of Himself and His ability to meet our need?
And what if He could bring us to a place where we could simply no longer ignore that need, or the answer to that need?
And perhaps this is where God’s judgment plays in. Perhaps hell, or the lake of fire, or the outer darkness, or whatever you want to call it, is in part a place that God allows us to find ourselves in, whether in this life or in the next, where we become aware of our need for God, become aware of how far we are from home, it becomes that pig-pen where we realize how stupid we’ve been, how crazy we’ve been, and it’s a painful realization, because having a change of heart and direction isn’t always easy, and becoming aware of our own need isn’t always easy, and it may even involve weeping and gnashing of teeth, it may even feel like we’re in a fire, the fire of having our eyes opened and knowing that we were wrong, and knowing that we need lots of help… but then that’s when repentance happens, when coming home happens…
And when we come home, we find that our Father is waiting for us, waiting to clothe us with righteousness, and to cover us with mercy, and to hide us in the shadow of His wings…
Not sure if this is making any sense, but yeah.
I wonder if coming at UR from this angle, the angle of sheer human need, in this case our need for God, whether we are aware of it or not, can more meaningfully incorporate both God’s sovereignty, in this case the fact that He has built this need for Him into us and can influence our awareness of that need and our awareness of Him, the answer to our need, and also man’s choice, in this case the fact that a man is still choosing something (in this case God), even if it is to meet a need that he has great difficulty ignoring…
I wonder if this is ultimately how Jesus will draw all men to Himself, is by appealing on some deep level to the need that is already in them, the need that only He can answer…
Not sure if this contributes much to the discussion, but that’s my two cents anyway.
And if it doesn’t help, or if any of you don’t think it holds much water, just toss it and focus on living and loving, because ultimately that’s more important than figuring all of this out anyway.
Blessings to you all, and peace
Matt
(PS Thanks Richard for initiating an interesting discussion, and Andrew, take it easy on Andre/Rob… he’s having a pretty rough time in his life and in his faith right now, so be sure to be tender with him, bro )
I don’t think it needs to be either/or. My understanding amounts, I suppose, to a union of both ideas.
Here’s a rough outline of how this works out…
The entry of Jesus into the Salvation drama, according to Jesus, brings Freedom. He comes/He came to free the captives. That’s us; all of us. This freedom God brings through Jesus is not optional – it’s not something we choose or refuse. God acts unilaterally to do this – He does not need our approval. And in thereby bringing us to freedom, He is not violating our freedom.
So this kind of unilateral act by God seems to me quite similar to what is called “predestination”. The “goose” then in your “duck-duck-goose” analogy is really an election to freedom – and it’s “geese” all the way around the circle!! God elects us all to freedom.
We will be saved both in Christ and in freedom; there will be no coercion. Our freedom broadly embraces the ability to know (truth, reality, etc) as well as to act in and on that knowledge. Because of the “work” of Christ (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, mediation etc etc) lack of knowledge is no longer an excuse to be lost. I don’t mean to boil down the magnitude of Christ’s contribution to mere “information”, but rather to emphasize the completeness of His revelation of the Truths about God.
I’m saying then that God is under no obligation whatsoever to accept as final the so called “free choice” that is based on inaccurate renderings of facts and truths. For such a thing would not actually be free, but based upon lies.
But next, being free also means being rid of the blight of mind (maybe we could call it sin?) that holds us back from acting in our own best interest. I walk down a psych ward and find a patient mutilating his body and mumbling incoherently, I don’t move on saying “well, that’s his choice; that’s what makes him happy”. No, I put leather restraints on the poor soul and work for his healing! And this poor soul may indeed look back on those leathers as his “hell”. But he will also grow to see it as a necessary step in his journey to being free.
What has long bothered me about the classic Arminian version of “free choice” is that it assumes the very freedom necessary to choose freedom. Sin however is that condition which blinds and distorts us in the first place and is anything but free!
Thus we are elected to freedom (to know and to act; both via Christ) and when free, we will choose God.
That makes a lot of sense, Bob Maybe if we throw your idea and my idea together into the same pot, we might get something that sort of answers this age-long debate
Not sure if this is making any sense, but yeah.
--- Matt
Allow me to say -- Matt is definitely making invaluable good sense -- especially to me as well as others
( whether they be lurkers or not ) :smiley: :smiley:
From the beginning of the pen creating lines on the paper from Augustine's hand thru to Calvin thru to
others who follow in their foot steps -- even those who affirm that their predestined corpus came
from Paul et al.... This issue will most likely never be resolved ... especially with those who are
entrenched on any side of this conundrum...
One could conceivably argue the point also from nurture/nature ... behavior psychology
even from BF Skinner or the opposing view of Skinner via Schaeffer
One could even argue from an educational teaching methodology -- that happens to focus on
Language Learning vs Language Acquisition --- anyone that dares to rally forces towards Chomsky
will have more than enough yelling "Circle the Wagons!"
In this controversy, we ask if the behavior of people is due to their Nature (or genetics) or to their Nurture (or environment)
For Barth the great mystery of creation lies not, as we might automatically be
inclined to think, in providing a religious solution to man’s search for meaning in the
universe. Creation, for him, is not the church’s answer to human uncertainty about
the ultimate origins and destiny of the universe, i.e. the church’s answer to the
question: ‘Is there a God who is responsible for bringing the world into existence and
sustaining it?’ Rather, the fundamental mystery of creation lies not in affirming that
God the creator exists, but rather it lies in affirming that we, his creatures, exist.
‘How’, Barth asks, ‘can there be something alongside God, of which He has no
need? This is the riddle of creation.’
3
The answer to the riddle, according to Barth, is
that creation is grace.
4
God allows heaven and earth and us to exist not by necessity
but by grace. ‘God’, writes Barth, ‘does not grudge the existence of the reality
distinct from Himself; He does not grudge it its own reality, nature and freedom. The
existence of the creature alongside God is the great puzzle and miracle, the great
question to which we must and may give an answer, the answer given us through
God’s Word; it is the genuine question about existence, which is essentially and
fundamentally distinguished from the question which rests upon error, “Is there a
God?” That there is a world is the most unheard-of thing, the miracle of the grace of
God.’
5
In my perspective the entire Raison d’être for Creation derives from the
Before the world was, before heaven and earth were,
the resolve or decree of God exists in view
of this event in which God willed to hold communion with man, as it became
inconceivably true and real in Jesus Christ
This posits a Worldview .. nay Universe-view
that God has created humanity with communion in mind
this is first and foremost as ( will hopefully be seen as I slowly work thru my descriptive
musings concerning the Genesis narrative ( 1-3)
the dynamic interactive inter-personal relational sphere between God / humanity
and men / women ( which includes kids as well -- along with animals, birds, mammals et al... )
which has as its ontological foundation the perichoretic koiononia between the Trinitarian fellowship
of the Father, the Son & the Spirit. Thus there is egalitarian behavior rather than hierarchical
ordering ...
Should God be able to
God allows heaven and earth and us to exist not by necessity
but by grace. ‘God’, writes Barth, ‘does not grudge the existence of the reality
distinct from Himself; He does not grudge it its own reality, nature and freedom.
Thereby humanity has the same phenomena surrounding its living existence…
If Calvin Klein clothing seeks to emphasize double or whatever form of predestination
in that God elects any believer (via TULIP )
then it is very fascinating to observe and notice …
Most likely due to the socio-cultural Western introspective conscience ( with the emotive
guilt-ridden conscience as well ) there has been a greater percentage of “elect” believers
within Europe, & the Americas or wherever Westerners have held the dominance for the
societal environment of those areas .
Should one take notice of India & Asia then the percentage of those who are supposedly
“elect” believers is greatly diminshed to tiny percentage of the total population…
Taiwan being 2% …
Even the Arm & Hammer paradigm also has inscrutable challenges to resolve regarding
this percentage of “elect” believers…
It is rather convenient within a staunchly entrenched Theological system to respond
that I am not God ( which is preposterous to begin with )
and thus that God is omin- this & omni-that such that whatever God “wills” will be
Righteously marvelous Justice …
Which in my estimation still has not resolved the fascinating percentage results above…
On the other hand Arm & Hammer Inc... along with its Wesleyean "Holiness" ( along with entire
sanctification & pentecostal esctatic experience -- by the way .. while I was in college
my dearly beloved classmates not only spoke in tongues, but sang in tongues and one
eager beaver introduced to me his Spiritual insight for writing in tongues :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: )
prompted, goaded, instigated, incited zealous zeal for Missionary work ... along with
Revivals during the late 19th & early 20th Century ....
Unfortunately with all of the Zealous Spirituality flames turning into bonfires...
Other denominations were instigating their own brand of "feather & tar" parties for these
Pentecostals ... :unamused: :unamused:
Again in my estimation this side of the fence has not resolved the fascinating percentage results above...
I read in another post about the 5 Tips for Evangelism ...
Although I certainly admire, and have enough respect for the poster's Passion
and the following two dittos ... My reaction is that these 5 Tips are typically abstract & idealized
concepts which fills a myriad of Devotional books seeking to prompt, incite more zealous effort
towards their Santification ... while still remaining in the same suburbs of Everyone USA...
( reminds me of the short film by Spielberg / Michael Jackson's "Ghost" which has a sign
that read ... Someplace Else -- the dialogue in it is really intriquing especially in connection
with viewing it together with the parable of the sheep & "baby goats" ) :wink: :wink: :wink:
Calvin Klein on one side posits God as determining our lives - whether via Micro-management
or even Macro-management
Arminians on the other side posits humanity with more flexible willpower to make choices
I am trying to find a resolution for myself -- how to deal with the percentage results above...
neither side resonates well for me ...
thus for a start on this journey
Should God be able to
God allows heaven and earth and us to exist not by necessity
but by grace. ‘God’, writes Barth, ‘does not grudge the existence of the reality
distinct from Himself; He does not grudge it its own reality, nature and freedom.
Thereby humanity has the same phenomena surrounding its living existence…
Thus UR does resonate for me as part of my journey to resolve this issue ...
p.s. In conversation with agnostic etc ... one who is not in the flock ...
Now all YOU need to do is accept Jesus as YOUR personal Savior
Is this really all that is necessary ?
YES! You MUST accept Jesus ... then You will be truly saved!
Are you sure? ya know with most Marketing schemes there is always the fine print ...
Hey -- stick with my Evangelistic program here .. no dallying or rambling off across the field...
*cough* *cough*
Now I MUST insist once again .. B-E-L-I-E-V-E IN JESUS then you are truly saved !
does this have any connection with the local Bank promotion about saving ?
gritting teeth .. heavenly artificial smile ...
If You would agree I can PRAY Jesus INTO You
( yes friends this actually happened to me while I was being the obnoxious unbeliever on the street )
do I need to join a Church ? go every Sunday? pay tithes? get baptized ?
*cough * *cough*
eyes now fixated ... heavenly artificial smile ...
YOU only need to pray the Sinner's prayer -- here is a sample
uh .. wait .. first it was only need to accept Jesus .. now it is ... this Sinner's prayer ..
Well of course ! after all YOU are a Sinner !
Here now let me show you this tract -- about the 4 Spiritual Laws ...
which naturally illustrates ... Jesus being the Lord of one's Life not just Savior ... :wink: :wink: :wink:
eventually the Zealous evangelist got perturbed enough .. then out came the
I was going to die and burn in Hell forever... sheeeeeeeeeeesh
p.s.s. After introducing someone who had repeated the Sinner's prayer with me
to a local Church ... then later this person visited me again ... and was really confused...
by asking me many questions about the long list of tasks he should be actively involved in ...
especially something called Santa Clausizing .. (santification )
the need for prayer meetings on Wed.. bible study meetings on Fri ... baptism coming soon ...
he told me that the inside of a Church seemed to be strong cognitive dissonance with
with Evangelistic talk in the beginning ...
Believe & accept Jesus then you are Saved!
gee I wonder what really happened to that family in the book of Acts ( Luke wrote )
after the entire family was saved... :wink: :wink:
please excuse the Tongue in Cheek approach ...
if you think your local church has too many tasks ..
then you should also know about the Eastern Orthodox paradigm ... :wink: :wink: :wink:
There are more than several billion Asians (for the sake of argument including India )
who although I am well aware that at least some of those with TVs have seen something
about Christian Churches or Jesus ... or the Bible...
at this time UR makes much more rational & reasonable sense to me ...
although the coming Kingdom or purgatorial experience must be an acquired taste... :wink: :wink:
p.s. I know what a Calv is -- Calvin Klein clothing :wink: :wink:
I know what an Arm is -- Arm & Hammer baking soda :wink: :wink:
but I really have zippo idea what is a Kath ? :unamused: :unamused: :unamused:
Thank you very much … Yes I definitely have this challenge with writing… .
but hopefully there are some who are willing to put enough effort into reading my posts...
to change my writing style would probably greatly decrease my enjoyment of writing ...
although I am trying to change .. but it seems that only when writing Poem like insights I tighten up ...
On the other side I can surely enjoy other lengthy posts due to the invaluable nuggets of gold, silver & sapphires I find..
all the best …
– this Forum is truly amazing with such diversity yet such flexible congenial friendship
Some additional thoughts building upon and underlining many of ya’lls comments in this thread.
In the post I link to the key thing I’m focusing on is the doctrine of election. Is it God’s will to save all or only some? The former is the Arminian view the latter is Calvinism. The point of my post is that all doctrines of election reduce, functionally, to a form of duck, duck, goose. Now I might be wrong about that, but that’s the argument I made.
That said, I do have high view of God’s sovereignty, that God gets what God wants. That is, if God wants to save all humanity then God will do just that. My point here is that I don’t think a high view of God’s sovereignty is the distinctive issue separating Arminians and Calvinists. The distinctive issue has to do with God’s methods in accomplishing God’s purposes.
Which brings me to my second point.
As I’ve said in many places, I’m not optimistic about free will. I think the human will, given that we are biological and finite creatures, is circumscribed and limited. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in choice. We chose things everyday. It’s just that our choices have context and history. The point being, I’m Arminian in that I do think we choose God. Coming to God is making a choice, repenting and making a turn, for reasons that are emotionally and cognitively connected to our life stories. This doesn’t, to me, look like instantaneous regeneration, being given a new heart and will, that God overrides our wills to make us respond. Coming to God looks more like AA and the Prodigal Son, hitting bottom and coming to our senses. Coming to God looks more like the school of hard knocks than the doctrine of election.
The point being, even without free will the framework here and the general psychological experience of coming to God looks a whole lot more like what Arminians have been describing than the Calvinists. The only small tweak you make to the Arminian view is giving the school of hard knocks enough semesters to get the job done. UR as I hold it is simply Arminianism with an eschatological imagination. That is, God’s sovereignty is exercised temporally rather than as an exercise of coercive (even if well intended) power. It’s God’s patience that allows us to be saved.
Richard Beck, I like your line, “Coming to God looks more like the school of hard knocks than the doctrine of election.” How true! And I like the idea that it’s God’s patience that leads to our salvation. I appreciate about it that we can avoid giving ourselves the credit and deny select election. It’s the best of both worlds! I appreciate all your thoughts as you’ve helped me make sense of my own.
I’m certainly with you on the pessimism toward free will, as well as still having some choice; though that freedom is clearly limited to some extent by God’s sovereignty. (Though I’ve heard it argued that God can sovereignly choose to not limit human choices; I’m not sure if I buy that.)
I can’t agree with you about choosing God though, as there are numerous direct statements in scripture to the contrary, where it’s made clear that we are unilaterally chosen by God (whether temporarily as vessels of honor or dishonor), not the other way around.
AISI, God’s holding all the cards, though he lets us play some hands. He allows us some choices, and those do have real consequences, but He still gets His way in the end. (Incidentally, I am currently leaning toward those consequences only being temporal as well.)
)
