 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/9/2002 9:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | iclnet93.iclnet.org/pub/facdialogue/18/walsh
Worldviews, Modernity and the Task of Christian College Education
by Brian J. Walsh
Senior Member in Worldview Studies,
Institute for Christian Studies,
Toronto, Canada
quote:
Marsden spoke of "the triumph of Kuyperian presuppositionalism" in the North American evangelical scholarly community.
.....
. . . a style of Christian thought that emphasizes that crucial to the differences that separate Christian worldviews from non-Christian ones are disagreements about pretheoretical first principles, presuppositions, first commitments or basic beliefs. Thus, without denying the value of human rational-ity, it denies the autonomy or competence of reason alone to adjudicate some of the decisive questions concerning the context within which rationality itself will operate. This viewpoint can be contrasted with the older common sense Baconian tradition that once dominated American evangelical thought. That tradition assumed that there was only one objective science for all people and hence that ultimately there could be no real distinction between Christian thinking and clear thinking. Christianity, they thought, should therefore be able to win its case on rational or scientific grounds.
. . .
While the notion of worldview has a varied history, beginning with Kant in 1790, picked up via Fichte by Schelling, Schleiermacher, Hegel and Goethe and then on to Rickert, Wildebrand and Dilthey, one of the most common features of the term's use (Engels being a notable exception) has been that worldviews are pre-theoretical in character. A Weltanschauung is a global anschauung, that is, a view, outlook, perspective in life and the world that characterizes a people or a culture.
Such an anschauung is distinct from philosophy and science because it is held by all people regardless of their intellectual capabilities. Consequently, a worldview is non-theoretical and, if interpreted positively, it is seen to be pre-theoretical in the precise sense of being the very foundation of all theorizing. If interpreted negatively (as in Comte's positivism), worldview denotes the unscientific view of the unenlightened masses or primitive people.
It is this non-theoretical character of worldviews that made the idea so attractive to anthropologists. A. Irving Hallowell coined the term "ethno-metaphysics" to describe the exploration and analysis of various cultures.
Worldview seemed an appropriate category for anthropologists because so-called primitive people clearly had a set of conceptual presuppositions that functioned in an integrative way in their culture, yet these conceptual presuppositions were not theoretical in character. They were not anything like what we in the West called philosophy or science. In fact, they bore more relation to what we describe as myth.
But if non-Western peoples led their lives and formed their cultures in terms of a worldview articulated in the form of myth, could it not be the case that Western culture was also founded in a worldview, in a mythos? Many sociologists, historians and theologians have answered this question affirmatively. Langdon Gilkey is here
representative: . . ..
ONE WOULD BE WISE NOT TO PRESUME TO HAVE A "SCIENTIFIC" HANDLE ON SOMETHING "PRESIENTIFIC" -- AS IN THE ABOVE.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/18/2002 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Winghead,
This is in reply to your 05/13/02 post.
James wrote: How do you know what comprises God's love? I have yet to get a clear definition of it. Pouringagape gave me a bunch of verses, to which I will respond soon. But on your view, where do you learn about it?
Winghead writes:quote:
First, since God is Love, the answer to your question should be obvious. Like God, whose ways are beyond our ways and whose thoughts above our thoughts, His love is hard to fathom. Doc would tell us that we should look to Jesus to know God's love. God's love looks like death on a cross. Or perhaps, we can look at creation, and see all the variety and the little pleasures that God enabled us to enjoy? He did not have to make us with the ability to see and taste, and smell like he did. Of course, we can also look to scripture to learn about His love. And, as you know, He gives us His Holy Spirit to teach on a day by day basis.
Would you consider it "love" if God were to choose, unconditionally and unilaterally certain individuals to be saved?
Winghead writes:quote:
Besides, every human being knows when they have been loved the way God loves. They may not know why, but they know when it happens. (Here I am thinking of agape love.)
How do they know? Is it a feeling? Can you give a definition?
James asked: How would you go about distinguishing between true expressions and definitions of God's love and those that are false?
Winghead writes:quote:
Now, if she was willing to give her life for someone on the show, THAT would illustrate God's love.
Even if she weren't a believer?
Winghead had written:quote:
In this process, as we realize how much God loves us, we are able to trust him more.
James asked: Trust Him more for what precisely?
Winghead writes:quote:
Just trust him. Why must it always be trusting him "FOR" something.
The verb "trust" is meaningless if you cannot give a basis or aim for trusting. There's no such thing as "just trust."
Winghead writes:quote:
Why cannot we trust him to BE GOD?
This is an inane statement, Winghead. Of what benefit is trusting God to be God?
Winghead writes:quote:
Why not trust him, as he has asked us to trust him?
God does not give empty commands. There is a reason for the commands He gives, even if it is only to provide an expression of His nature, character, and/or attributes. E.g. Why should we avoid sin? Because it is contrary to God's nature. He hates sin and we desire to please Him.
Winghead writes:quote:
It is only Satan that questions God's motives.
Non sequitur, Wing. How is this statement the least bit relevant?
Winghead writes:quote:
Why are you working so hard to show that we do not trust God, or do not Love God? Perhaps it is because you listening to the accusor of the bretheren?
I'm merely asking questions, Winghead. I am accusing you of nothing. I'm still trying to get information. However, you seem unable to show how or why you trust and love God, which I find curious. You thus indict yourself.
James wrote, in response to my quote of 1 John 4:16: Precisely how have we known and believe the love that God has for us?
Winghead writes:quote:
Again, you are working your agenda. You are working to tear down. You sound like a postmodern deconstructionist. Listen to yourself!
Are you making accusation, Winghead? Isn't that a bit hypocritical of you? All I've done is ask a question. How does a question "tear down," unless your inability to answer is indicative that your theological system cannot stand? How does a mere question make me a postmodern deconstructionist? Is your system so shoddy that it cannot bear a confrontation with mere questions?
James asked: Precisely how does the love of God help us to trust Him?
Winghead writes:quote:
Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. 1 Cor. 13:7 (NLT)
Love never gives up: how does that relate to your trust in God? Love never loses faith: Faith in what and why? Don't just say, "Faith in God." Give some basis for having faith in Him and delineate what it is you actually have faith about. Love endures through every circumstance: Give me an example of how enduring love secures your trust.
Winghead writes:quote:
Because, it dwells in us. Because it IS the Love of God. Because as we Love God, God lives in us (1 John 4:16).
That all sounds very nice; but please unpack it for me. Love dwells in us; how does that relate to your trust in Him? God lives in us; how does that relate to your trust in Him? Are you trusting Him to be love? Are you trusting Him to keep love in you? Are you trusting Him to continue living in you? For what benefit? Especially considering that you yourself can cause God to "leave" if you turn your back on Him.
James wrote: I trust my wife, but not absolutely, because I know she is finite and human and has the tendency to fail. Same with me. She knows she cannot trust me absolutely. I fall short often.
Winghead writes:quote:
Of course, as Paul said, "I put no confidence in the flesh". No matter how trustworthy people might be, they have the potential to fail us. However, God is not like us. YOU KNOW THAT!
Yeah, I know that. Not everyone here agrees with us. You should take this up with TGB (IIRC); he says he trusts his wife absolutely.
Winghead writes:quote:
Don't YOU trust God?
What gives you the idea that I don't?
James asked: Do you, with Tom and Greg, believe that we are not supposed to absolutely trust God?
Winghead writes:quote:
Not at All!!! Where did you get that idea?
From Tom. I'll cull the quote and post it.
Winghead writes:quote:
All we are saying is that God cannot be trusted to be mellodramatic like a Disney movie or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. God is God. God is a consuming fire. It is not a trite being to by toyed with!
But your characterization of God makes it just like Santa Clause. How is God any different from Santa Clause? He can't do anything to save you. You are the variable. You must save yourself. Why trust Santa Clause? YOU must be good. Santa will do his part IF you do yours. Santa is the constant. YOU are the variable.
Winghead writes:quote:
It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Heb. 10:31 (NLT)
On your view, why is this verse true? Do you fear God? Or trust Him? Why? If He is doing everything He can to save you, what could be so terrible?
Winghead writes:quote:
That said, God tells us to trust him, to have faith, to come to him for guidance, to honor him, to obey him, and, he asks us to love him.
Doesn't He COMMAND us to do these things? Do you believe He gives reasons for these commands?
James asked: Are you absolutely confident and assurred that that for which you hope is going to happen? On what is that assurance and confidence based if prophecies have failed?
Winghead writes:quote:
There are different kinds of revelation that God gives us. Some are conditional. God's dealing with Israel during the time of the Kings was conditional upon their obedience and fidelity.
Has that changed? Can you still be saved if you are disobedient and an infidel?
Winghead writes:quote:
Even when unfaithful, God sought them to repent and turn back to him.
How is that any different than now?
Winghead writes:quote:
Some prophecies of destruction are given as a warning to turn back, and as such, are conditional.
How is that any different today?
Winghead writes:quote:
Others, like the prophecies about the messiah and the new heaven and new earth are eternal, and are a part of God's overall plan for the universe.
How do you tell the difference? How do you know the new heaven and new earth are not conditional? Is your salvation conditional? The promise that He will conform you to the image of His Son -- is that conditional? The promise that He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in you -- is that conditional?
Winghead writes:quote:
The OV does not have problems with recognizing and understanding these distinctions, any more than Calvinism has. It is only in man's vain disputes and speculations that we are forced to response to questions like this.
Nice try, Winghead. The Bible itself asks questions like this, so spare us the chide.
Winghead had written: While God has demonstrated his faithfulness to us, and scripture is a major part of this testimony, and Doc never minimalizes scripture, faith is not purely an intellectual exercise.
But Doc has. So has Tom. I know they disagree; but it appears they do not realize the implications of their words -- unless they are being deliberate and disingenuous.
Not at all! You might accuse them of many things, but this is not one of them. You put words in their mouths. You twist their words. Your remind me of the pharisees who were always trying to trap Jesus.
What hypocrisy, Winghead! You accuse, you put words in my mouth, you twist my words. Furthermore, I stated that Doc and Tom would disagree. Are you denying this? Have I put words in their mouths? My aim is to learn the details of their position; thus far it appears that they undermine and minimalize the perspicuity of scripture. You're really overreacting, Winghead, and saying horrible things in the process.
Winghead writes:quote:
You talk about Jesus chasing the money changers from the temple, but James, this is not the temple, it is Greg Boyd's web site, and you are a guest!!!
What is your point, Winghead? Aren't we all guests here? Shouldn't we all be respectful of one another, and especially the host? Are you saying I should be banned from this forum? What is the charge? Are you prepared to stand up to the same scrutiny?
Winghead had written: Trusting God is not something we can toss into a bucket with our theological and philosophical systems.
James replied: Is that how you view your theology? As something tossed into a bucket? Theology is the study of God and His relation to creation. Shouldn't we have a much higher regard for theology? Why shouldn't the topic of trusting God be included in one's theological system? Wouldn't you agree that one's theology will affect one's trust in God?
Winghead writes:quote:
Praise God! You are now twisting my words. I must have graduated to the same high disregard as Tom and Greg! You honor me.
Oh PLEASE! If this weren't so serious it would be ludicrous. I asked questions, Winghead. If you're really interested in having a respectful discussion that is beneficial and informative to the participants, then clarify your statements and answer my questions. If you're just here to flex your rhetorical muscles and to chide me for asking innocuous questions, then I haven't the time or inclination to continue this dialogue with you.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/19/2002 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Greg,
This is in response to your 05/13/02 post (I'm WAY behind, aren't I?).
Greg writes:quote:
Hilston believes he trusts God more than I, or TGB, or any non-determinist.
You miss the point, Greg. It's not that I think I trust God more. It's not that I think you trust God less. It's not a question of degrees. Rather, I can't see how, on your view, you trust Him at all. And since you say you do, please explain for what exactly do you trust Him?
Greg writes:quote:
TGB and I and others argue that we disagree with the grounds for his trust (his interpretation), but we nevertheless trust God absolutely, as much as he does, but on other grounds.
What grounds would you be referring to?
Greg writes:quote:
Hilston then argues we can’t trust God absolutely on our grounds, ...
On your grounds? What grounds would they be?
Greg writes:quote:
This is nuts. Positively nuts! Its like two husbands arguing about who trusts their wife more -- which is bizarre in the first place -- and then trying to resolve it on the basis of how they interpret the wedding vows their wives took!
That's not it at all, Greg. And in typical OV fashion, you've confused a divine/absolute issue with a human/contingent one. It's not a question of who trusts more. It's a matter of who has grounds on which to base one's trust, and how that trust actually ramifies. Your illustration is non sequitur because wedding vows do not express or delineate anything regarding the character of the spouses who vow them. The vows are the ideal which the spouses promise that they'll try to emulate, albeit recognizing their own humanness and propensity to fail. But the revelation of God is not like a wedding vow ideal. It is rather the objective and actual expression of God's nature and character.
Greg writes:quote:
Look, I would never question someone's trust in your wife till they grounded their trust in an appeal to their particular interpretation of their wives wedding vows. Now I have to wonder, because it looks to me like they're trusting the wedding vows, NOT HER. Seems to me you only have to leverage particular interpretations of wedding vows when THE RELATIONSHIP has vanished and you’ve ended up in divorce court.
This is a mischaracterization. One's trust in God must be based on objective revelation. We know God, His character, nature, attributes (i.e. those things on which we base our trust) by objective revelation from God. My trust in my wife is not based on the vows, but on her actual nature and character. I don't learn about her nature and character from the wedding vows. I learn them from getting to know her personally. If I had objective revelation to which I could refer in order to know her better, I would consult it. So we ought to consult God's revelation of Himself in order to know Him better and to trust Him.
Greg writes: quote:
Either way, why would we argue about this in the first place? Are any of us feeling insecure in our relationship with God? No one here has professed any worry about losing their faith in the future, have they?
I don't know where you're getting this stuff, Greg. The argument is intended to draw out the presuppositions and attending beliefs of the Open View as they pertain to God's nature and character.
Greg writes:quote:
And if anyone is, I don’t think THIS is the discussion we’d be having. Is anyone feeling MORE secure because of this discussion? We should either talk about apologetics, or developing a more vibrant prayer life, or something.
It's not the intent of the thread.
Antio',
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/20/2002 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hilston, its like this. Remember that old hymn refrain that went:
"I have no other argument
I need no other plea
It is enough that Jesus died
and that he died for me"
THAT'S my ground.
I know God in Christ. I love God in Christ. I'm loved by God in Christ. I experience God in Christ. I'm transformed by God in Christ. I'm secure with God in Christ.
Now you come along and say this is "arbitrary" and "subjective." You don't see how I can trust God AT ALL. To <i>really</i> trust God, you argue, we must accept your interpretation of several passages that tell you that you can't possibly fall away.
Even if I accepted your interpretation of these passages, it wouldn't add one iota to my trust. I trust my relationship with God more than I trust your (or mine) interpretation of these (very disputed) passages.
My only concern with you, James, is that you think your interpretation DOES add to your trust. In fact, its rooted in it -- to the point that you don't see how people who lack your interpretations can trust God AT ALL.
Got to run.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/20/2002 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Doc, technical genius that you are, I have a suggestion:
rather than surround your code letters i,b etc. with <> consider using the format friendly [ ]. There are two immediate gratifications from doing this. The first is that you don't have to push shift to get the [ ] (these are found immediately to the right of the letter "p"). The other is that the board will see the italics or bold that you are hoping for rather than the more complex <i> </i> patterns that frequently appear in your posts. 
You know I love ya!
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/20/2002 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Greg,
Thanks so much for your reply. See my comments/questions below:
Greg writes: quote:
"I have no other argument
I need no other plea
It is enough that Jesus died
and that he died for me"
THAT'S my ground.
You know what, I would say that's MY ground as well, but it appears that you and I do not mean the same thing by those words. The difference is, when I say those words, I actually believe that His death ALONE secures my salvation. On your view, if I understand correctly, you must ADD your own obedience and faith to His death in order for it to "stick." On my view, the payment that was made in my behalf ACTUALLY paid the price for me, period. No effort on my part. No promise on my part. No requirements whatsoever because I can't add to the sufficient sacrifice of Christ. On your view, if I understand correctly, Jesus does everything He can (He is the constant), but ultimately it boils down to whether or not you stay the course (you are the variable, and therefore the ultimate saving component). So His death didn't actually do or secure anything for you. The actual work and the reality of salvation comes only if YOU stay the course. On your view, if I understand correctly, the payment that was made by Christ's blood is not sufficient to save you. It doesn't actually make the payment unless you accept it and stay the course. It would be like walking into a store to purchase a bag of rice, pulling out your wallet and handing the cashier the money, but before you could walk out of the store, you had to get the permission of the rice before it could be purchased. So ultimately, YOU are your own savior. On your view, if I understand correctly, a life preserver was tossed to you, and you chose whether or not to be saved by clinging to it or not. On my view, I am powerless to even choose the life preserver -- totally dead in spirit, in utter rebellion and hatred of God, like floating in a coma, total inability -- and despite that, He dies for me and saves me, dragging me to Himself to show me His love as expressed in the blood He shed for me.
Greg writes:quote:
I know God in Christ. I love God in Christ. I'm loved by God in Christ. I experience God in Christ. I'm transformed by God in Christ. I'm secure with God in Christ.
Please describe your security in Christ. Do you speak of a psychological security? Or an actual protection and secure state?
Greg writes:quote:
Now you come along and say this is "arbitrary" and "subjective."
I'm still hoping to hear what precisely you are trusting Him for. Maybe if you unpack it for me I will see that it is actually objective.
Greg writes:quote:
You don't see how I can trust God AT ALL. To really trust God, you argue, we must accept your interpretation of several passages that tell you that you can't possibly fall away.
I'll allow the possibility that I'm missing something. Please describe to me the basis and result of your trust in God. In other words, if you say you're trusting Him for your salvation, what is your basis for that trust, especially considering that you believe (if I understand correctly) that you can UN-save yourself.
Greg writes:quote:
Even if I accepted your interpretation of these passages, it wouldn't add one iota to my trust.
Sure it would. You would have an actual reason with an actual benefit of an effectual trust in Him. You could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your salvation; you could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your progress in the faith; you could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your conformity to the image of Christ; you could absolutely trust Him to bring to completion the good work He has begun in you; you could absolutely trust Him to bring to fruition the good works He ordained in advance for you to do. Each of these is based on specific statements and/or prayers found in the Pauline corpus which apply specifically to the Body of Christ. If each of those can be undermined by me, then I have no basis to trust God. It could all come crashing down if I choose to rebel, in which case there is no security, there is no effectual trust. Sure, one might say God is trustworthy, but if He cannot secure anything because of libertarian free will, then of what effectual benefit is that trust?
For what do you trust God, Greg? To what effectual benefit? What is the nature and parameters of your security in God, Greg? What has He secured for you?
Efcharisto polu',
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/20/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston, are you a universalist? Is everyone saved? That is what I am hearing you say.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/20/2002 8:18:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/20/2002 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Iconoclast,
Thanks for your excellent question. It would of course be the logical conclusion if one believes Jesus died for all men without exception. Here are the three options as I see it:
Either:
(1) Christ shed His blood for all men and actually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, and high in actual effectual value), in which case all men are saved = universalism;
(2) Christ shed His blood for all men, but only those who are faithful are actually saved (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, but low in actual effectual value), in which case, only some men are saved (albeit by their own efforts);
or,
(3) Christ shed His blood for some men, and actually effectually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was particular in extent, and high in actual effectual value).
I hold to position (3).
Gracie',
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/20/2002 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston:
(3) Christ shed His blood for some men, and actually effectually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was particular in extent, and high in actual effectual value).
I hold to position (3).
Iconoclast:
What I hear you saying is that there is the set of individuals who are saved (SavedSet) and the set of individuals who are not saved (UnSavedSet). That Jesus died to save the SavedSet.
How does one get themselves into the SavedSet?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/20/2002 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston: I actually believe that His death ALONE secures my salvation.
doc: don't you believe you must also accept it?
Hilston: On your view, if I understand correctly, you must ADD your own obedience and faith to His death in order for it to "stick."
doc: so too on your view, for you are not a universalist.
Hilston: On my view, the payment that was made in my behalf ACTUALLY paid the price for me, period.
doc: so on my view.
Hilston: No effort on my part. No promise on my part. No requirements whatsoever because I can't add to the sufficient sacrifice of Christ.
doc: Yet you blieve you must believe and commit to walking with him. but you, like me, don't think this "adds" to the sufficient sacrifice of christ (my right "shift" button isn't working, sorry.)
Hilston: On your view, if I understand correctly, Jesus does everything He can (He is the constant), but ultimately it boils down to whether or not you stay the course (you are the variable, and therefore the ultimate saving component).
doc: so it is on your view. You simply add that you believe god will make sure you "stay the course." If in the future you stop doing this, then god didn't destine you to "stay the course."
Hilston: The actual work and the reality of salvation comes only if YOU stay the course.
doc: If you reject christ and live like the devil, do you think you are (or ever were) saved? I doubt it. so, for you too it is true that "the actual work and the reality of salvation comes only if YOU stay the course.
Hilston: On your view, if I understand correctly, the payment that was made by Christ's blood is not sufficient to save you. It doesn't actually make the payment unless you accept it and stay the course.
doc: as it is on your view. In your view, if I understand you correctly, people who never believe and/or who don't "stay the course" are not saved.
Hilston: YOU are your own savior.
doc: If this is true about my view, it is true about yours as well. In fact, it is true of neither.
Hilston: On your view, if I understand correctly, a life preserver was tossed to you, and you chose whether or not to be saved by clinging to it or not.
doc: so too on your view. You had to choose to believe. You of course add that you could not do this without the Holy spirit. I would agree. You would claim that with the work of the Holy spirit you could not help but believe. Here I would disagree. but it nevertheless remains true that in your view, as in mine, you had to choose whether or not you wanted to be saved.
Hilston: On my view, I am powerless to even choose the life preserver -- totally dead in spirit, in utter rebellion and hatred of God, like floating in a coma, total inability -- and despite that, He dies for me and saves me, dragging me to Himself to show me His love as expressed in the blood He shed for me.
doc: as in my view. I only add that he allows me to reject it if I want to.
Hilston: Do you speak of a psychological security? Or an actual protection and secure state?
doc:"trust" is a psychological state, so I'm speaking about psychological security. You don't get out of a "merely" psychological security just because you psychologically are secure that your security is also an "actual protection".
Hilston: I'm still hoping to hear what precisely you are trusting Him for. Maybe if you unpack it for me I will see that it is actually objective.
doc: I'm loved outrageously, wildly, crazy, passionately, unconditionally, incomprehensibly, unsurpassably, etc...
Hilston: Please describe to me the basis and result of your trust in God. In other words, if you say you're trusting Him for your salvation, what is your basis for that trust, especially considering that you believe (if I understand correctly) that you can UN-save yourself.
doc: Hilston, like you, if I were to stop believing in christ, I wouldn't be worried about the ground of my salvation in christ. I'm not worried about "unsaving" myself, any more than your worried about it turning out your NOt one of god's "elect." we both believe we are god's people because we trust in christ for salvation. we both believe that if we were to abandon this trust we could not be assured of salvation. but we both beleive we shall not do this. the fact that your belief includes thinking god keeps you from rejecting him doesn't change our trust in christ in the least.
Hilston: Greg writes:quote:
Even if I accepted your interpretation of these passages, it wouldn't add one iota to my trust.
Hilston responds: Sure it would. You would have an actual reason with an actual benefit of an effectual trust in Him.
doc: but this changes nothing. NOTHINg. It all applies, in your view, only IF you believe. we are both trusting that our faith won't change.
Hilston: You could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your salvation;
doc: I agree with you -- so long as you believe... which is precisely what YOU believe.
Hilston: you could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your progress in the faith;
doc: I do... if you continue to believe... which is what YOU believe.
Hilston: you could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your conformity to the image of Christ;
doc: I do... if you continue to believe... which is what YOU believe.
Hilston: Each of these is based on specific statements and/or prayers found in the Pauline corpus which apply specifically to the Body of Christ.
doc: as are all the warning passages about falling away, all the statements about salvation If you persevere in the faith, etc...
Hilston" If each of those can be undermined by me, then I have no basis to trust God.
doc: you have the cross of Jesus christ... just trust him.
Hilston: It could all come crashing down if I choose to rebel,
doc: so are you saying that if you choose to rebel, nothing changes? You could become a pedophilic satanist, and you'd still be saved?
Hilston: in which case there is no security, there is no effectual trust.
doc: Is there a "non-effectual" trust? If you trust, it Is effectual, isn't it?
Hilston: Sure, one might say God is trustworthy, but if He cannot secure anything because of libertarian free will, then of what effectual benefit is that trust?
doc: the same effectual benefit there is in trusting if you believe you don't have libertarian free will.
Hilston: For what do you trust God, Greg?
doc: see above.
Hilston: To what effectual benefit?
doc: see above.
Hilston: What is the nature and parameters of your security in God, Greg? What has He secured for you?
doc: beleive on the Lord Jesus christ and you shall be saved. same as with you.
get it?
Efcharisto polu',
doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/20/2002 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston:
Either:
(1) Christ shed His blood for all men and actually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, and high in actual effectual value), in which case all men are saved = universalism;
Iconoclast:
Is it possible that option 1 could be true but that if I really wanted to I could still reject Christ? In other words Christ died and everyone was saved - totally and completely saved - totally loved, forgiven ... the whole works. Universal in extent and totally and completely effectual in value. Free membership to Heaven - only caveat - have to spend eternity in loving union with God. What if some people really don't want this? What if some people really want to make it on their own as their own god? Would God, like the father of the prodigal son, allow his child to go off and try and make it on his own? Even if he knew they might never come back? Would he welcome them back if they came back? Now? AND in eternity?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/21/2002 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Iconoclast,
I am delighted by your questions. They are well thought and show that clear logic is at work in you! :)
Hilston wrote: (3) Christ shed His blood for some men, and actually effectually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was particular in extent, and high in actual effectual value).
I hold to position (3).
Iconoclast writes:quote:
What I hear you saying is that there is the set of individuals who are saved (SavedSet) and the set of individuals who are not saved (UnSavedSet). That Jesus died to save the SavedSet.
Yes. That's it.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
How does one get themselves into the SavedSet?
The wording is important here. How does one get oneself saved? You can't. You can't save yourself. That's the point of our being "dead in our sinful trespasses" (Eph 2:1,5 Col 2:13), actually helpless and unable to save ourselves. If you were to ask, "How can I be saved?" I would say, "Repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be your Savior and your Head and you will be saved." What I am tacitly saying to you is, "If you truly desire salvation and all its attending consequences, then this indicates to me that you may be elect. So if you say you truly repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, it may very well be that you are among the elect, and that the Holy Spirit has been working in you and probably regenerated you some time ago, thus causing you to seek Jesus and His truth." Note that "repenting" and "believing" are not CAUSAL; they are concommitant (accompanying, attending): "AND you will be saved," NOT "THEN you will be saved." Belief does not cause regeneration. It's the other way around. Regeneration causes belief. That is to say, when the Holy Spirit regenerates you, you are saved. He THEN gives you the gift of faith by which you are then able to repent and believe, i.e. without which you could NOT repent and believe (Ro 8:7). Without that gift, you would not seek God; you would continue to hate Him and to run from Him.
So to answer your question, one does not "get oneself into the SavedSet." What actually happens is that one finds that one has a desire to BE in the SavedSet. This happens after one has already been "put" there, so to speak.
You're asking excellent questions, Iconoclast. Thank you for raising them.
Gracie',
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/21/2002 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston,
Thank you for your response.
What I hear you saying is that a person cannot do anything to be saved. God chooses to put an individual in the SavedSet. He unilaterally decides to regenerate someone. The external evidence that the regeneration may be taking place is that the individual starts showing a desire for salvation and its attendant consequences.
Some questions:
1. Does this mean that God decides NOT to regenerate some individuals?
2. Is there external evidence that conclusively shows that an individual is in the SavedSet?
3. Is there internal evidence that conclusively shows an individual that they are in the SavedSet?
4. Can an individual unilaterally choose NOT to be in the SavedSet? (This question, of course, presupposes that it is possible to know if one is in the SavedSet or not – please disregard if it is not possible to know)
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/22/2002 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Histon: "SavedSet"
PotOnWheel: Hilston, can you be more specific about that you mean by "saved" and "salvation?"
Thanks. I'd appreciate it.
PotOnWheel | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/24/2002 7:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston wrote: I actually believe that His death ALONE secures my salvation.
doc writes: quote:
don't you believe you must also accept it?
Not for it to be effectual. One's acceptance of it comes well after regeneration has taken place. One CANNOT accept it until one is able to repent and believe. This cannot happen prior to regeneration.
Hilston: On your view, if I understand correctly, you must ADD your own obedience and faith to His death in order for it to "stick."
doc: quote:
so too on your view, for you are not a universalist.
Not at all. Obedience and faith are the inevitable consequences to regeneration. I.e., those who are regenerated are ALSO given the gift of faith, which evokes repentance and belief. What makes salvation "stick" is the fact that the purchase price has been paid in full. That which is purchased (the sinner) cannot abrogate the purchase (the shed blood of Christ). A slave cannot decide not to be purchased out of the slave market. In our case, we were slaves to sin, unable to free ourselves. Then Christ came and paid -- in full -- the purchase price and freed us from that master to make us slaves of righteousness to a NEW and generous and benevolent Master, Who, ironically, gives us freedom like we've never before known. We therefore love this new Master and serve Him willingly, even if we were initially opposed to Him at first introduction (which we all were, right?).
Hilston wrote: On my view, the payment that was made in my behalf ACTUALLY paid the price for me, period.
doc writes: quote:
so on my view.
But above you admitted that you must ADD obedience and faith, right? That means Christ's death in itself is not sufficient. On my viewk, it goes like this: "Here's the required purchase price, paid in My blood; this man is now My possession." On your view, if I understand correctly, it is rather, "Here's the required purchase price, paid in My blood; this man must now add his own contribution in order for the actual payment to accomplish my ownership of him. Even then, it's not a permanent ownership because this man might renege on his contribution, at which point the purchase price is abrogated entirely." Who would ever buy something on those terms? What security is there in that? How does the concept of "purchase" and "redemption" have any normative meaning in such a scenario? Again, Christ is the constant; you are the variable. Therefore, your effectual salvation actually depends entirely upon your efforts.
Hilston wrote: No effort on my part. No promise on my part. No requirements whatsoever because I can't add to the sufficient sacrifice of Christ.
doc writes:quote:
Yet you blieve you must believe and commit to walking with him.
I believe I must ONLY because I love Him and desire to please Him by obeying His Word. NOT because I think it "keeps me saved," or that my salvation is contingent upon my continued love and obedience. Salvation is causal of love and godly behavior, not the reverse.
Doc writes:quote:
... but you, like me, don't think this "adds" to the sufficient sacrifice of christ.
You say you don't think it adds, yet, on your view, it is the ONLY variable and that which singularly will see to it that you are saved. On your view, Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to save you. It is an empty payment, or perhaps we can call it "matching funds," like my company's 401K plan (for management anyway). One puts up so much love and obedience, and Jesus will "match" one's contribution with some blood to purchase one's redemption which one agreed to. You see, this really points to the special and particular love that Jesus has for His chosen ones. He did not waste one drop of blood. He did not purchase the redemption of all without exception. He laid down His life for His friends; those He loved specially.
Hilston wrote: On your view, if I understand correctly, Jesus does everything He can (He is the constant), but ultimately it boils down to whether or not you stay the course (you are the variable, and therefore the ultimate saving component).
doc writes: quote:
so it is on your view. You simply add that you believe god will make sure you "stay the course."
Not at all. "Staying the course" is a consequence of being saved, but it is not necessary to the actual effectual payment of the ransom. The price is paid, period. It just so happens that God also effects righteousness, obedience, love, etc. in those for whom He died, but these things have nothing to do with the effectuality of the actual transaction secured at the cross.
Doc writes:quote:
If in the future you stop doing this, then god didn't destine you to "stay the course."
The "if" is a non sequitur. It is an inconsequentiality with respect to the effectuality of Christ's shed blood with respect to salvation. "Staying the course" is an attending fact to the redemption by Christ for His elect, but it is neither causal nor sustaining of that redemption. The redemption is eternal regardless of the behavior, belief, etc. of the purchased individual. But it just so happens that God has decreed good works (Eph 2:10) and conformity to the image of His Son to those for Whom Christ died.
Hilston wrote: [On your view, IIUC, The actual work and the reality of salvation comes only if YOU stay the course.
doc writes:quote:
If you reject christ and live like the devil, do you think you are (or ever were) saved?
Another non sequitur. You might as well ask "If a triangle could have four sides, would the Pythagorean theorem ever have been true?"
Doc writes:quote:
I doubt it. so, for you too it is true that "the actual work and the reality of salvation comes only if YOU stay the course.
Nope. You're mixing apples and oranges. These are two distinct theological matters. Your attempt to conflate them is resulting in confusion. Go back to the redemption analogy. If you buy a puppy, the fact that it never learns to poop outside has nothing to do with your ownership of it. You bought it, you own it, no matter what -- unless you turn around and sell the puppy to someone else. But, a good master who loves his puppy unconditionally will be constant, and will not do that. He will rather train that puppy to poop outside, and that puppy can have absolute assurance that the good master will never leave nor forsake that puppy, even if he never learns to poop outside. Ironically, that security in knowing that the master can be trusted absolutely to keep him forever actually enables the puppy to cheerfully and lovingly poop outside like he's supposed to.
Hilston wrote: On your view, if I understand correctly, the payment that was made by Christ's blood is not sufficient to save you. It doesn't actually make the payment unless you accept it and stay the course.
doc writes:quote:
as it is on your view. In your view, if I understand you correctly, people who never believe and/or who don't "stay the course" are not saved.
You're conflating again. The actual payment, the purchase, the resulting ownership are independent and sufficiently settled matters between the buyer and the seller. The behavior and faithfulness of the "merchandise" is secondary and altogether a different issue with respect to security in salvation.
Hilston wrote: [it follows that] ... YOU are your own savior.
doc writes:quote:
:If this is true about my view, it is true about yours as well. In fact, it is true of neither.
How am I my own savior? What, on my view, can I do to secure my own salvation? Keep believing? Stay obedient? We don't live with that threat. We believe and obey because we have security and full assurance in Christ's finished work on the cross.
Hilston wrote: On your view, if I understand correctly, a life preserver was tossed to you, and you chose whether or not to be saved by clinging to it or not.
doc writes: quote:
so too on your view. You had to choose to believe.
No, the belief comes AFTER one is revived. To continue the analogy: The comatose man floating in the water must be dragged from the water and revived on deck. Only THEN does he respond with gratitude toward the Savior.
Hilston wrote: On my view, I am powerless to even choose the life preserver -- totally dead in spirit, in utter rebellion and hatred of God, like floating in a coma, total inability -- and despite that, He dies for me and saves me, dragging me to Himself to show me His love as expressed in the blood He shed for me.
doc writes:quote:
as in my view.
I'm not following you. Are you saying that you believe you were powerfless to choose Christ before you were regenerated? Do you also agree that Christ had to drag you to Himself because you were unable to come willingly?
Doc writes:quote:
I only add that he allows me to reject it if I want to.
If He allows you to reject Him if you want to, then what do you trust Him for? For surely He cannot see to it that you are with Him forever. That part is up to you. Of what effectual benefit is your trust in Him? Whence comes your security, since He doesn't actually/effectually secure anything for you? Securing your salvation depends upon you, right?
Hilston: Do you speak of a psychological security? Or an actual protection and secure state?
doc writes:quote:
"trust" is a psychological state, so I'm speaking about psychological security. You don't get out of a "merely" psychological security just because you psychologically are secure that your security is also an "actual protection".
One ought to be the result of the other. Do you actually believe you are secure in Christ? On what is that security based? Christ's finished work? Or your own tenacity and effort in love and obedience?
Hilston wrote: I'm still hoping to hear what precisely you are trusting Him for. Maybe if you unpack it for me I will see that it is actually objective.
doc writes:quote:
I'm loved outrageously, wildly, crazy, passionately, unconditionally, incomprehensibly, unsurpassably, etc...
You're trusting Him to love you? To what actual effectual benefit? Good feelings? Does it have any actual and substantive benefit beyond the warm-and-fuzzies? Unconditionally? So it seems you're saying He loves you unconditionally, but He will still send you to hell if you reject Him? So of what effectual and actual benefit is that unconditional love if He will send you to hell on certain conditions? I mean, isn't it the equivalent of telling my son, "I love you unconditionally, but if you reject me, I will stop providing for you. Don't get me wrong -- I'll still love you unconditionally, but that's a different issue."
Hilston wrote: Please describe to me the basis and result of your trust in God. In other words, if you say you're trusting Him for your salvation, what is your basis for that trust, especially considering that you believe (if I understand correctly) that you can UN-save yourself.
doc writes:quote:
Hilston, like you, if I were to stop believing in christ, I wouldn't be worried about the ground of my salvation in christ.
BUT, if you don't have any guarantee here and now that you will NOT stop believing in Christ, then you have no actual security, because it has no basis in actual protection.
Doc writes:quote:
I'm not worried about "unsaving" myself, any more than your worried about it turning out your NOT one of god's "elect."
I have a basis not to worry. What is your basis for not worrying that you might someday fall away?
Doc writes:quote:
... we both believe we are god's people because we trust in christ for salvation.
No so. I don't believe I am one of God's people because I trusted Christ for my salvation. I believe I am one of God's people because Christ died for me and His blood actually and permanently paid the price.
Doc writes:quote:
... we both believe that if we were to abandon this trust we could not be assured of salvation.
No so. I cannot (I am unable), in my redemptive state, abandon this trust. Of this I am fully assured, just as the scriptures instruct. There is no fear of falling away. It is rather a fear that I will not use the resources He has given to their fullest extent. And, since my redemptive state was secured by Christ, by His blood, a sufficient and actual paid purchase price, there is nothing that I can do to change it.
Doc writes:quote:
... but we both beleive we shall not do this.
How do you know? What is the basis for your confidence that this won't happen? On my view, Christ will see to it that I will never reject Him. On your view, what is going to keep you from rejecting Him?
Doc writes:quote:
... the fact that your belief includes thinking god keeps you from rejecting him doesn't change our trust in christ in the least.
Sure it does. On my view, I rely on the power of God to secure me and to keep me. On your view, you depend upon yourself. Doesn't Proverbs warn us about trusting in ourselves?
Greg previously wrote:quote:
Even if I accepted your interpretation of these passages, it wouldn't add one iota to my trust.
Hilston responded: Sure it would. You would have an actual reason with an actual benefit of an effectual trust in Him.
doc writes:quote:
... but this changes nothing. NOTHINg. It all applies, in your view, only IF you believe.
Not so. It all applies IF Christ died for me. This is the basis for my security: Christ's work; not mine. On your view, you have no actual reason tied to an actual benefit of an effectual trust in Him.
Doc writes:quote:
... we are both trusting that our faith won't change.
I am trusting Christ that He will ensure my progress in the faith and the completion of the good work He has begun in me. Who are you trusting to keep your faith from changing?
Hilston wrote: You could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your salvation;
doc writes:quote:
I agree with you -- so long as you believe... which is precisely what YOU believe.
Nope. It's not a belief-dependent contingency. He guarantees my salvation, not because I continue to believe, but because He spilled blood specifically and specially for me at Calvary. He paid the price, and that payment actually saves me. Not my continued belief. Not my continued obedience. Those are results, not causes or sustaining forces.
Hilston wrote: you could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your progress in the faith;
doc writes:quote:
I do... if you continue to believe... which is what YOU believe.
Nope. I used the term "absolutely" for a reason. I exclusively trust Him (not Him PLUS me, not His blood PLUS my belief) to guarantee my progress in the faith because He shed His blood for me, an act which secured every promise, to bring them to actual fruition. On your view, it's up to you to see to it that you continue to believe. I don't see how you can agree and say that you absolutely trust Him to guarantee your progress in the faith, when earlier you said that you could reject Him if you wanted to. I cannot. I am unable, not because of my own goodness or good sense, but because He will see to it that I do not reject Him.
Hilston wrote:... you could absolutely trust Him to guarantee your conformity to the image of Christ;
doc writes:
I do... if you continue to believe... which is what YOU believe.
You do not absolutely. Rather, you do so contingent upon your own efforts, which is NOT secure and hardly a basis for trusting Him.
Hilston wrote: Each of these is based on specific statements and/or prayers found in the Pauline corpus which apply specifically to the Body of Christ.
doc writes:quote:
... as are all the warning passages about falling away, all the statements about salvation If you persevere in the faith, etc...
The Holy Spirit uses these warnings to curb wrong behavior and to confirm and assure the elect. An elect person reads those warnings with fear and responds accordingly. This is guaranteed. On your view, a saved person could read those warnings and STILL reject Christ.
Hilston wrote: If each of those can be undermined by me, then I have no basis to trust God.
doc writes:quote:
... you have the cross of Jesus christ... just trust him.
"Just trust Him ..." for what? On my view, the cross means full assurance of my salvation. On your view, the cross is just an open door, mere potentiality, not actuality, and YOU have to do the walking.
Hilston wrote:... It could all come crashing down if I choose to rebel, ...
doc writes:quote:
... so are you saying that if you choose to rebel, nothing changes? You could become a pedophilic satanist, and you'd still be saved?
It's the heretical hypothetical -- but for the sake of the discussion: IF I could choose to rebel (which I cannot -- Christ sees to that) and IF I could become a pedophilic satanist (which I cannot -- CHrist see to that), then yes, it has no bearing upon my eternal salvation because my salvation is not based on my behavior or beliefs. It is based on an actual payment that was effectually made in my behalf two millennia ago.
Hilston wrote: in which case there is no security, there is no effectual trust.
doc writes:quote:
Is there a "non-effectual" trust? If you trust, it Is effectual, isn't it?
What I mean is, there is no trust that has an effectual benefit. Without security, or something on which to base that trust, the trust is unfounded. It boils down to a self-delusion. If my son were to trust me to absolutely protect him from all harm, it might make him feel good, but it is based on a fallacy, because I canNOT actually and effectually protect him from all harm.
Hilston wrote: Sure, one might say God is trustworthy, but if He cannot secure anything because of libertarian free will, then of what effectual benefit is that trust?
doc writes:quote:
... the same effectual benefit there is in trusting if you believe you don't have libertarian free will.
Not so. You tacitly admit that He cannot secure anything, yet you trust Him for your security. It's incoherent, Greg.
Hilston wrote: For what do you trust God, Greg?
doc writes:quote:
see above.
What did I miss?
Hilston wrote: To what effectual benefit?
doc writes:quote:
see above.Please forgive me. I must be a bit foggy tonight. I just re-read through it. What am I missing? Do you state above what you are trusting God for, and what the actual effectual benefit of that trust is?
Hilston wrote: What is the nature and parameters of your security in God, Greg? What has He secured for you?
doc writes:quote:
beleive on the Lord Jesus christ and you shall be saved. same as with you.That doesn't answer the question, Greg. If salvation is contingent, then it isn't secure. If your salvation depends upon anything that is not guaranteed, then it isn't secure. On my view, I may have absolute and total security, apart from my own failings, which in turn motivates me toward living more obediently and lovingly for Him.
Gracie'
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
markus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100
| Posted 6/25/2002 1:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi,
I have not read all the previous postings, so I hope I am not repeating others here. If so, I apologise beforehand...
Earlier above, Hilston described three alternatives regarding Jesus' salvatory work, as follows:
quote:
Here are the three options as I see it:
Either:
(1) Christ shed His blood for all men and actually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, and high in actual effectual value), in which case all men are saved = universalism;
(2) Christ shed His blood for all men, but only those who are faithful are actually saved (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, but low in actual effectual value), in which case, only some men are saved (albeit by their own efforts);
or,
(3) Christ shed His blood for some men, and actually effectually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was particular in extent, and high in actual effectual value).
I hold to position (3).
HOwever,would you not agree that the following verses tend more towards option 2?
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1Tim 2:4-6
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe:" 1Tim 4:10
My own feeling is that these verses indicate that Jesus died for all, but the “contract” is only ratified with those that believe.
But another interesting perspective to this is when does the deadline for belief actually expire? According to the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the division between God’s Kingdom and hell seems to follow mortal death. On the other hand, Isaiah and St Paul both state the ALL men will bow before our Lord and confess Jesus Christ - which are the requirements for salvation. Since this clearly doesn't happen to all in this lifetime, when will this happen? And if it happens at Judgement Day, does God turn around and say "tough, its too late now" - would it really have been worthwhile raising themfrom the dead only to tell them they didn't make it? Sounds a bit wobbly to me.
Equally, Revelation states that on the day of Judgement, the dead will be raised and judged according to their works (what happen to "faith alone"?):
"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Rev 20:13
I find the questions of who is saved, by how much faith, and by what deadline, extremely confusing! And I guess we are not supposed to pre-judge who God will save when the time comes, anyway – afterall that IS God’s work, not ours, isn't it?
But, I'm rambling again, back to the point - I do think the Bible shows Jesus died for ALL men – the open offer is on the table and anyone can pick it up – the real issue is can we hold on to it without it happening to us like “it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” 2Pe 2:22 - that's tough talking! - but there are many forces that will try to make those in faith do exactly that, and return to their old ways.
Markus
Edited by - markus on 06/25/2002 07:02:56 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/25/2002 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Iconoclast,
Here are responses to your additional questions:
Hilston had written:Either: (1) Christ shed His blood for all men and actually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, and high in actual effectual value), in which case all men are saved = universalism; ...
Iconoclast writes:quote:
Is it possible that option 1 could be true but that if I really wanted to I could still reject Christ?
No, because that undermines the actual effectual value. In every monetary transaction, which is the picture we are given in scripture regarding our redemption, there are two parties: the seller and the buyer. The merchandise has no say in the matter. If the purchase price is sufficient to buy the merchandise, the currency is presented and the transaction is complete. The currency therefore has actual effectual value regarding the acquisition of the merchandise. From the point of view of the merchandise, let's say it's a slave, the actual effectual value of the purchase price is his being owned by a new Master, in this case, a righteous and loving Master.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
In other words Christ died and everyone was saved - totally and completely saved - totally loved, forgiven ... the whole works. Universal in extent and totally and completely effectual in value ...
But if the payment does not allow the buyer to actually buy and own that for which He has provided payment, then it is not effectual. And it is not of high value.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
Free membership to Heaven - only caveat - have to spend eternity in loving union with God. What if some people really don't want this?
It doesn't matter if they want it or not. If they were bought, then they are owned, period. The truth is, no one wants it until they are given the gift of faith. Everyone rebels and is unable to yield to God's law (Ro 8:7). This is why each person must be dragged into a love relationship with Christ (Jn 14:6). No man comes unto the Son unless the Father drags him (Jn 6:44). The verse is not one of potentiality, but of actuality:quote:
No man can come to me, except the Father Who has sent me drags him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
It doesn't say He might raise him up (by implication, to life eternal). It says He will. How can He be so sure? Because the ones who come to Him are dragged by the Father, sometimes kicking and screaming, that is, until they realize the absolute trust and security they have in Christ because of what He has done specifically for him.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
What if some people really want to make it on their own as their own god?
Everyone does, until God intervenes. Everyone is dead in their sinful trespasses until God buys them out of that slavery to sin, regenerates them, and imbibes them with faith and love.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
Would God, like the father of the prodigal son, allow his child to go off and try and make it on his own? Even if he knew they might never come back? Would he welcome them back if they came back? Now? AND in eternity?
The allegory of the prodigal son is not about salvation in an individual sense. It is about the nation of Israel, constrasting those who were wayward but later repentant, versus those who viewed themselves as ever faithful, but were really gainsaying scoffers.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
What I hear you saying is that a person cannot do anything to be saved. God chooses to put an individual in the SavedSet. He unilaterally decides to regenerate someone.
Correct.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
The external evidence that the regeneration may be taking place is that the individual starts showing a desire for salvation and its attendant consequences.
Yes, that may be external evidence. However, I've seen that kind of evidence, only to find out later that it was merely a foxhole "conversion," someone who wanted God to get him out of trouble, but then once the trouble blows over, he doesn't want anything to do with Him; or he wants to keep God at a distance.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
Some questions:
1. Does this mean that God decides NOT to regenerate some individuals?
To be more clear, He has decided already who He will have regenerated. All the rest will go to hell.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
2. Is there external evidence that conclusively shows that an individual is in the SavedSet?
No. We can have strong indications: An independent hunger for scripture; a vibrant and evident love for Christ; selfless devotion to other Christians; zeal for the gospel and a willingness to witness for Christ. But these things in and of themselves are not conclusive proof, nor would I encourage someone to go around trying to ascertain who is regenerated and who is not. If someone claims to belong to Christ, I take them at their word and treat them as a brother/sister until their behavior or attitude gives me sufficient cause to think otherwise.
Iconoclast writes:quote:
3. Is there internal evidence that conclusively shows an individual that they are in the SavedSet?
Absolutely. We see an example of this in the beginning verses of Romans 4. Abraham saw his own faith (it was counted unto him, that is, unto Abraham) as indicative of his own righteous standing before God. In other words, Abraham realizes, "Hey -- look at these otherwise impossible things I believe. I believe in things that are invisible and in the far future, just because God told me. That's amazing. How is it that I can believe these things that seem impossible? It must be because the Lord has given me faith to believe. And the fact that I have this faith must mean that I am beloved of Him and I must therefore have a righteous standing before Him."
Iconoclast writes:[quote]4. Can an individual unilaterally choose NOT to be in the SavedSet?[quote]A person who has been chosen from before the foundation of the world to be regenerated into "the SavedSet" is not able to unilaterally reject their salvation. Nor would they want to. The gift of faith causes them to believe in and to have a relationship with God on His terms. If a a truly regenerated person could unilaterally choose to reject salvation and hence, lose their salvation, then that would mean that Christ's death did not actually accomplish anything toward the obtaining of the "merchandise;" i.e. that gives Christ's shed blood a low value.
Excellent questions, Iconoclast. Let me know if anything is not clear.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/26/2002 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Markus,
Thanks for your questions. replies are below:
Markus quoted Hilston:quote:
Here are the three options as I see it:
Either:
(1) Christ shed His blood for all men and actually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, and high in actual effectual value), in which case all men are saved = universalism;
(2) Christ shed His blood for all men, but only those who are faithful are actually saved (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, but low in actual effectual value), in which case, only some men are saved (albeit by their own efforts);
or,
(3) Christ shed His blood for some men, and actually effectually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was particular in extent, and high in actual effectual value).
I hold to position (3).
Markus writes:quote:
However,would you not agree that the following verses tend more towards option 2?
Are you saying that those verses are affirming a low/limited value on the so-called "salvatory work"? Do you agree with option 2, viz., that Christ's atoning work is limited in its actual effectual value?
Markus quotes:quote:
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1Tim 2:4-6
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe:" 1Tim 4:10
I will assume from the emphasis you put on "all" that you believe this means "all without exception." In the Greek language, it is rarely the case that "all" means "all without exception." It typically means "all of particular set" or "all kinds" or "all manner of." For example do you believe everyone, all without exception, went to John to be baptized in the Jordan?
Mt 3:5 "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan."
Mr 1:5 "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."
Did this include the pharisees and scribes? The Sanhedrin? Pontius Pilate?
Markus writes:quote:
My own feeling is that these verses indicate that Jesus died for all, but the “contract” is only ratified with those that believe.
Where do you get the idea of a contract? If want to use that analogy along with the slave market illustration, then the contract is between the seller and the Buyer -- the previous master (Sin) and the new Master (Christ). The contract says the Buyer (Christ) must pay the purchase price (Christ's blood) to the seller.
Markus writes:quote:
But another interesting perspective to this is when does the deadline for belief actually expire?
Where does the idea of "deadline" come from? Is there a deadline for when one should stop sinning? Today is the day of salvation. 2Co 6:2. Repent or perish.
Markus writes:quote:
According to the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the division between God’s Kingdom and hell seems to follow mortal death.
This is a misunderstanding. The account of Lazarus and the rich man does not describe God's Kingdom. It describes the bosom of Abraham, which is where the dead in Christ of Israel's kingdom await the consummation of their Hope, viz., the Eternal Kingdom.
Markus writes:quote:
On the other hand, Isaiah and St Paul both state the ALL men will bow before our Lord and confess Jesus Christ - which are the requirements for salvation.
This also is a misunderstanding. Confessing Christ as Lord is not a requirement for salvation: quote:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." -- Mt. 7:21
Confessing Christ as Lord is a requirement for every human being, period. All are required to submit, either now or later. Those who go to hell will bow to Him and confess Christ as Lord, but not unto salvation, rather unto humiliation.
Markus writes:quote:
Since this clearly doesn't happen to all in this lifetime, when will this happen? And if it happens at Judgement Day, does God turn around and say "tough, its too late now"
No. At that point, they already know it's too late. They confess Christ as Lord because they (a) are compelled out of awe or (b) because they are compelled to out of fear. In either case, as scripture says, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord.
Markus writes:quote:
... would it really have been worthwhile raising themfrom the dead only to tell them they didn't make it? Sounds a bit wobbly to me.
Every human is raised. Some to eternal damnation, some to life everlasting. What's "wobbly" is your apparent misunderstanding of justice and due process. God could easily cast every rebel into hell without one word of explanation. But He will judge them, and the case will be made against them. Due process will be carried out. Righteousness and truth will be vindicated. Sin and rebellion will be judged and punished for eternity.
Markus writes:quote:
Equally, Revelation states that on the day of Judgement, the dead will be raised and judged according to their works (what happen to "faith alone"?)
Wow. That makes for a rather squirrelly contradiction then, doesn't it? Which verse will you cut out of your Bible? Eph 2:8,9 or Rev. 20:13? Let me know when you decide.
Markus writes:quote:
I find the questions of who is saved, by how much faith, and by what deadline, extremely confusing!
You betray false notions regarding salvation that concern me greatly. Repent or perish. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your Head and you will be saved.
Markus writes:quote:
And I guess we are not supposed to pre-judge who God will save when the time comes, anyway – afterall that IS God’s work, not ours, isn't it?
When the time comes? One is either chosen/elect or not. If one is elect, then salvation is inevitable, according to God's decreed time and circumstances. Their obedience to the command "repent or perish" demonstrates to him/her the fact that he/she is truly chosen. If one is non-elect, then damnation is inevitable, and his/her rebellion to the command to "repent and perish" will be used against him/her in due process.
Markus writes:quote:
... I do think the Bible shows Jesus died for ALL men – the open offer is on the table and anyone can pick it up ...
Where do you get the idea that salvation is offered? It is a command, and imperative, not an "offer." Does Christ make an "offer" to not be a murderer or an adulterer? It is a command, punishable by death and damnation.
Markus writes:quote:
... – the real issue is can we hold on to it ..."
Yeah; that's a tough one. How will you ever make it, considering the fact that man's nature and propensity is toward rebellion and sin? On my view, Christ sees to it that I will be saved, apart from my ability to "hold on to it." My "holding on" has nothing to do with His holding on to me. quote:
"If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." -- 2Ti 2:13
He loves me too much to leave it up to me. That's why the case is settled, and the price has been paid. I'm "stuck with Him" because He loved me and paid for me. Secondly, He ensures that I will progress in the faith and persevere in righteousness and good works, because He has actually ordained them for me to do them (Eph 2:10).
Markus writes:quote:
... “it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” 2Pe 2:22 - that's tough talking! - but there are many forces that will try to make those in faith do exactly that, and return to their old ways.
Indeed. Whatever will you do? What is going to keep those many forces from having their way with you? Can you ever have full assurance, as the scriptures describe (Go back and read my very first post). Can you ever truly trust God if He is powerless to protect you from the freewill agents who work for your destruction, not to mention your own free-will propensity to yield to sin and corruption?
Thanks for your post,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2002 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Marcus and Iconoclast,
Here are Hilston's three choices. He says that you must chose between them.
quote:
Hilston
Posted - 06/20/2002 : 11:49:10 PM
----------------------------------
Here are the three options as I see it:
Either:
(1) Christ shed His blood for all men and actually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, and high in actual effectual value), in which case all men are saved = universalism;
(2) Christ shed His blood for all men, but only those who are faithful are actually saved (i.e. the atonement was universal in extent, but low in actual effectual value), in which case, only some men are saved (albeit by their own efforts);
or,
(3) Christ shed His blood for some men, and actually effectually paid the full ransom (i.e. the atonement was particular in extent, and high in actual effectual value).
I hold to position (3).
He offers a false-problem. These three are not the only choices. ALL THREE of the options that his Calvinism offer are based on a "juridical" model (akin to Roman law) where God's indignation has to be satisfied. Christ is sacrificed to "appease" God. (One wonders then whether God is a God of love... but it appears also that God only loves certain people... so...) In his view Christ's death is performed to satisfy an abstraction: God's indignation and a cosmic justice that preexists God and supersedes his Love. Rather than Christ being understood as "the offerer, the offered and the offered to" as the Bible and the Church teach, Christ is hated by God so that God can decide to love us instead of hating us -- some of us that is.
This sort of un-Biblical version of predestination can be credited to Augustine (It gave Freud the view that not everyone was "worthy" of help.) but is recognizable as under the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism. It presents, as Augustine did, a paganized view of God.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/26/2002 1:18:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/26/2002 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | PotOnWheel,
At the risk of again subjecting myself to your seeming endless and inane citations from minds other than yourself, would you care to prove this statement [using scripture]?:
PoW writesquote:
Rather than Christ being understood as "the offerer ... as the Bible ... teach[es].
Where is it said in scripture that Christ's "makes an offer"?
As to what the so-called "The Church" teaches, you can spare us the confusions and contradictions of the traditions of men that do little more than to abrogate the Word of God. Let God be true and every man a liar (myself included).
Isa 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
2Co 10:12 "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."
Arrivederci,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2002 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Hilston, you almost always seem to misunderstand what the other guy is saying. And again, it is because you so often try to squeeze their expressions into your own frameworks. (For all your talk about "perspectival" you aren't very good at it.)
MY point, offered to Icon and Marcus, was that your three points are not the only available choices. This is very true. I said that YOUR points were all within a juridical framework. It is within that framework that "offered" means "offered to"--it is within juridical transactions that a cash-like deal is made. Offering extends beyond that particular framework though.
Your question is flawed.
You posted:
quote:
PoW writes
quote:
--------------------------------------
Rather than Christ being understood as "the offerer ... as the Bible ... teach[es].
--------------------------------------
Where is it said in scripture that Christ's "makes an offer"?
As all can plainly see I said that Christ is the "offerer." I did not say that he "makes an offer."
One "makes an offer" only when there is someone other than one's self to accept or reject it.
But the answer that I CAN give you is that Christ offered himself up for us, to death on the Cross. No one took it from Him. He did it willingly.
quote:
Ephesians 5
1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.
and
quote:
Yet it was the will of the Lord (Yahweh) to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53: 10-11)
PoW
- - - - - - - - - - -
P.S. St. Gregory of Nazianzen makes this point about Christ's sacrifice in his Second Paschal Oration, in which the section following that point addresses the same thing Paul speaks of in verse one: "Be imitators ... just as Christ ... gave himself up (in love)..." Gregory preaches: "Let us sacrifice ourselves to God; or rather let us go on sacrificing throughout every day and at every moment. Let us accept anything for the Word's sake. By sufferings let us imitate His Passion: by our blood let us reverence His Blood: let us gladly mount upon the Cross. Sweet are the nails, though they be very painful. For to suffer with Christ and for Christ is better than a life of ease with others."
......................................
Hilston, I'm just saying that there are MORE THAN THREE CHOICES OUT THERE. No one has to agree with this choice that is not of the other three! But that it is a choice -- one in the mainstream of Christianity -- is absolutely TRUE!
Icon and Markus, it is for you to consider whatever you want.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/26/2002 3:56:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/26/2002 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston proposed that we have three options, which I would re-state as follows:
(1) Unlimited atonement, irresistible grace - which Hilston rejects because it leads to "universalism"
(2) Unlimited atonement, resistible grace - which Hilston rejects because it makes the atonement "low in effectual value"
(3) Limited atonement, irresistible grace - to which Hilston holds because it makes the atonement "high in actual effectual value" without leading to universalism
Is it just me, or is Hilston begging the question? IF the purpose of the atonement is to allow God to save those who freely say "yes" to Christ--IF what God really wants is the free response of His creatures--then ONLY option (2) would give effect to the purpose of the atonement. On the other hand, IF the purpose of the atonement is merely to save those whom God has already elected to be saved, THEN Hilston is correct and only option (3) would give effect to the purpose of the atonement without leading to universalism. Hilston's analysis as to the effectual value of the atonement under option (2) vs. option (3) merely begs the question as to the nature of the atonement and its relation to free will in the first place.
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/26/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW writes:quote:
MY point, offered to Icon and Marcus, was that your three points are not the only available choices.
Please proffer the other available choices.
PoW writes:quote:
I said that YOUR points were all within a juridical framework. It is within that framework that "offered" means "offered to"--it is within juridical transactions that a cash-like deal is made. Offering extends beyond that particular framework though.
Please elaborate.
PoW writes:quote:
Your question is flawed.
Which question? Flawed how?
PoW had written:quote:
Rather than Christ being understood as "the offerer ... as the Bible ... teach[es].
To which I asked: Where is it said in scripture that Christ's "makes an offer"?
PoW writes:quote:
As all can plainly see I said that Christ is the "offerer." I did not say that he "makes an offer."
I'm well aware of what you said. What I'm obviously missing is what you meant by it. If Christ is an "offerer," doesn't that mean He must therefore be "offering something"?
You wrote: quote:
"the offerer, the offered and the offered to"
Now if offerer doesn't mean something was offered, then we are not speaking the same language. I suppose next you'll say that a giver doesn't really give anything and that a recipient doesn't really receive anything.
PoW writes:quote:
One "makes an offer" only when there is someone other than one's self to accept or reject it.
No kidding. Who suggests otherwise? On my view, Christ doesn't offer salvation. He commands, "Repent or perish." Does anyone else follow what Pot is saying here? If you're talking about His offering up His life as a sacrifice, then you're way out in left field.
PoW writes:quote:
But the answer that I CAN give you is that Christ offered himself up for us, to death on the Cross.
You're way out in left field. For Christ to offer Himself to God as a sacrifice is not the same as offering others the benefits of that sacrifice, which is the point of this exchange as it relates to my three options above. I should've figured you were getting these mixed up. Please come back to this discussion.
PoW writes:quote:
No one took it from Him. He did it willingly.
Who ever said otherwise? What is your point?
PoW writes:quote:
Hilston, I'm just saying that there are MORE THAN THREE CHOICES OUT THERE.
Let's hear them, Pot.
PoW write:quote:
No one has to agree with this choice that is not of the other three! But that it is a choice -- one in the mainstream of Christianity -- is absolutely TRUE!
Let me see if I follow your reasoning. The fact that there are other choices, regardless of whether or not they are coherent, exegetically sound, or have logical clarity, somehow legitimizes holding to an incoherent, exegetically indefensible, and irrational position? Correct me if I'm wrong.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/26/2002 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | JET writes:quote:
Hilston proposed that we have three options, which I would re-state as follows:
(1) Unlimited atonement, irresistible grace - which Hilston rejects because it leads to "universalism"
Wrong. First, the irresistible grace is irrelevant if Christ's death paid the price in full for all without exception. Acceptance, faith, belief, obedience are not relevant to the effectuality of the purchase price. Second, I reject it because the Bible teaches that not everyone will be saved.
JET continues quote:
... (2) Unlimited atonement, resistible grace - which Hilston rejects because it makes the atonement "low in effectual value"
Wrong again. Resistible grace has nothing to do with these scenarios. It is an comparison regarding the extent and value of Christ's atonement, period. If it is contingent upon humans meeting additional requirements, then Christ's death is limited in actual effectual value and benefit, i.e., His sacrifice did NOT pay the ransom in full. Now, are you saying that you're OK with the idea that Christ's death didn't pay the price in full and therefore doesn't have a high and effectual value?
JET continues: quote:
... (3) Limited atonement, irresistible grace - to which Hilston holds because it makes the atonement "high in actual effectual value" without leading to universalism.
Wrong. I hold this view because it is biblical and logical. I do not come this view by a process of elimination. The three options are an effort to compare three logical scenarios and consider how they square with scripture.
JET writes:quote:
Is it just me, or is Hilston begging the question?
It is only begging the question if I assume my conclusion as the basis for my proof. All I've done is present three logical scenarios. Choose which one you prefer:
(1) Redemption that is universal in extent and pays in full for the redemption of all (everyone gets saved);
(2) Redemption that is universal in extent and pays partially for the redemption of all (only some get saved if they satisfy certain additional requirements);
(3) Redemption is limited in extent and pays in full for the redemption of some (only those for whom Christ died will be saved).
If you have some other possible scenarios that are logically coherent, I'd like to see them.
JET writes:quote:
IF the purpose of the atonement is to allow God to save those who freely say "yes" to Christ--IF what God really wants is the free response of His creatures--then ONLY option (2) would give effect to the purpose of the atonement.
YOu again seem to be saying that Christ's sacrifice did not pay in full the redemption of men and was limited in its effectuality. Is that correct? That His death only partially paid for your redemption?
JET writes:quote:
... On the other hand, IF the purpose of the atonement is merely to save those whom God has already elected to be saved, ...
"Merely"? LOL, JET. That's like saying, "He merely wanted to donate one of his kidneys so his sister could live." On your view, the purpose of the atonement is merely to pay only partially for the redemption of men.
JET continues: quote:
... THEN Hilston is correct and only option (3) would give effect to the purpose of the atonement without leading to universalism.
Again, are you denying that Christ's death actually paid the price in full for any single person?
JET writes:quote:
Hilston's analysis as to the effectual value of the atonement under option (2) vs. option (3) merely begs the question as to the nature of the atonement and its relation to free will in the first place.
Not at all. The analysis is independent of the freewill issue, because I believe we do have freewill, just not of the libertarian sort. It is a basic question of the extent and value of Christ's redeeming work.
Thanks for your post.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2002 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | JET, Would you wave at Hilger's Farm Market & Restaurant on 30 for me?!!!
Lets hear it for Whitley County! | | Back to Top | | |
| 235 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|