 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/24/2001 12:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | Lewis B. Smedes (a fairly independently thinking Calvinist) on Election, in "Union with Christ", pp.85-90
=============================
5. ELECTION IN CHRIST
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him (Eph 1:3,4)
No other sentence that Paul wrote carries more mystery into our union with Christ than this doxology. And the doxology can easily be spoil by trading the mystery for a crisp formula. The Christian faith is better off when it bows before the mystery of antecedent love than when it carries off the prize of a precise formula. Still, the words are in front of us. And words are meant to help our understanding as well as to kindle our devotion.
What does the doctrine of election tell us about our life in Christ? This is the reverse of the question that one ordinarily asks of this texts: what does the fact that we are chosen in Christ tell us about the doctrine of election? But the two questions are interwoven. And, in a sense, we are forced to ask them both at the same time. For each question, if asked separately, implies that we already have the answer to the other. So we had better ask again about "election in Christ" and also ask if it illumines the reality of our being in Christ. **footnote**
First we must observe that Paul sings his song to electing love from within the reality of life in Christ. He begins from where we are -- in Christ. We are, he says, blessed in Christ and are present with Christ "in heavenly places" (1:3). "Heavenly places" points to the new creation that is really, but not comprehensively present. So it is the language of hope; the "heavenly places" point ahead to a future reality -- the reality of "all things" united in Christ. The surprising fact is that we are already included in the new reality.
Only a sense of wonder and the experience of surprise inspire songs. A person is not moved to sing by commonplaces. The inevitability of syllogism does not inspire a doxology. We sing when we wonder; our songs are born of mystery. And the wonder here is that people {i]like us are "in the heavenly places with Christ." How does one account for this reality, this "being in Christ"? There is no accounting for it. There is no reason in heaven or earth we should be so blessed.
It is a gift. Paul ran from Christ; Christ pursued and overtook him. Paul resisted Christ; Christ disarmed him. Paul persecuted Christ; Christ converted him. Paul was alien; Christ made him a member of the family. Paul was an enemy; Christ made him a friend. Paul was "in the flesh"; Christ set him "in the Spirit." Paul was under the law.; Christ made him alive to God. how does one give reasons for this? He does not give reasons; he sings: "Blessed be God who blessed us . . . even as he chose us in him."
The reason for saying this is to remind us that Paul is not philosophizing about the eternal plan of an absolute deity. He is stricken by grace, overwhelmed by love. and he sings. What he says of election in Christ is a song, a confession, a hymn of wonder. Love is not a reason; it is a mystery to sing about.
We must now turn to the fact that our election was in Christ from before the worlds were made. This means that Christ, too , was elect. And to say this is only to repeat what the New Testament ways again and again. Jesus' death was predestined (Acts 2:23; 4:28). "This is my Son, my chosen," Luke reports the Father as saying (Luke 9:35). God loved Him before the world was founded (John 17:24). He is the Lamb of God, elect to be slain for man's atonement (1 Pet. 1:20). And like Melchizecek he was a priest with not earthly antecedents to account for him (Heb. 7:16). Moreover, he was appointed "the heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the world" (Heb. 1:2).
He was elect as the concrete individual doing the specific task that He was chosen to do. But we must also note that His election was not only as the comprehensive Christ. Paul is always concerned with Jesus in his total significance, in his grand contest.
The contest, is, first of all, the election of Israel. Israel is God's chosen; out of all the nations of the earth, she was God's unique concern. "You only have I chosen our of all the families of the earth," says Jehovah (Amos 3:2). Israel may have distorted and twisted the meaning of its won election, but it could not undo the fact of it.
The essential meaning of Israel's election is: God and His people in vital community. community is the purpose or end of election. But it crystallizes the meaning as well as the goal: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:33). Jeremiah's conviction is echoed by prophet after prophet. And it is echoed in new forms in the new Testament until, in the vision of the Apocalypse, John hears the great voice from the throne crying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them" (Rev. 21:3).
Israel was elect as Jehovah's servant for the blessing of the nations; Jesus is the culmination of Israel's election, for He is the "suffering servant of Jehovah" for the salvation of the world. His cross and resurrection are what Israel's election was all about. He established a covenant "in His blood" that cannot fail. And the core of His covenant is the same as the core of Israel's covenant -- God and humanity is reconciled partnership (Isa. 42:1).
This thought must be brought back to our election in Christ, God's election is His "plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him (Eph. 1:10). Christ was elect as the Christ "to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of the cross" (Col. 1:20). He is elect as the one in whom a new creation is brought into being through the reconciliation of men with God at the cross. he is elect as head of His body, the Church, which is the harbinger of the coming new creation. This is the comprehensive sense in which we must think of the election of Jesus Christ. Christ the concrete individual, the Man for others, is elect. But His election, like Israels's, and with Israel's, is the decision of God to create a new world of people in partnership with Him. When we think of election, we must think of God's comprehensive decision to have a "new creation."
Thus, when we think of ourselves as elect in Christ, we must think of ourselves as elect in the comprehensive Christ. when Paul says "Christ" he includes His universal goal and its universal achievement. We are in God's decision to unite "all things" in Christ. So is the Christ within whom all things are recreated. And we are elect within that concrete and comprehensive Christ.
If we reflect on our "election in Christ" in this way, we will be spared from the frightening abstractions that have so often plagues the doctrine of election. *^*footnote*^* We will never think of election as a grace-less love-less decree to select some individuals for heaven and to reject other individuals for hell. The election in Christ is not a matter of numbers. Paul is talking, as we said, as a man dumbfounded that he and we were included in God's election. He is singing of the mercy of God that included us; he is not speculating on why certain others are not included.
We are elect in Christ. How hard it is to say what this means! Christ and Christians, the Lord and His subjects, the King and His kingdom, the Reconciler and the reconciled, the Leader and His followers, the Head and His body are elect together. Bavinck says: "The community and Christ are together in the one decision; they are, as one community, the elect." Perhaps this is what we should be content to say. God wanted a new creation with people in it who were His people, and this was His election. He elected a kingdom with a King, a body with a Lord, and sinners with a Savior. He elected us in the comprehensive Christ, the Christ who was -- in faith -- first defined as "Lord of All."
Being chosen in Christ means that we can no more be the object of God's agapic desire apart from Christ than a fraction can exist without an integer, a part without a whole. He is the circle in shich we are included. He unites the whole of which we are individual parts. He is the elect head of whom we are the body. To confess that we are chosen is, then, to confess that our new being is in Christ fundamentally and eternally; and that is to say that we are included in the new creation in Christ only through God's agapic, free decision of love. To make the discovery that one is in Christ is, at the same time and with the same wonder, to confess that one is in Christ because God in love freely desired a new creation in Christ.
What, then, does election by God's free agapic decision tell us of union with Christ? It tells us that the new order begun at the cross and resurrection, which sweeps into the here and now under His lordship and in the power of His Spirit, and which will culminate in the new earth where all things are reconciled, is rooted, not in time present, but in God's own eternal desire in love to give himself in partnership with men and to restore a situation where we will be "his people" and He will be "our God" and Christ shall be all and in all.
__(footnotes)__
** Footnote: That the nature of our union with Christ was explained by Paul's doctrine of election was firmly believed by Albert Sweitzer. "Once it is perceived," he writes, "that we have to start from the conception of the predestined solidarity of the Elect with one another and with the Messiah, the mystical body of Christ is at once explained." This is too large a claim, it seems to me. But it does have point. Taken in its whole breadth, to include the foal of election as well as the fact of it, to include God's purpose to unite all things in Christ by means of His resurrection, it does tell us something truly significant about union with Christ. But Schweitzer's entire book was weakened, in my judgment, by finding in the "preordained solidarity" of the Messiah and His people the key to understanding Paul's "mysticism." There is too much of real history, including our experience and discovery of God in history, to make pre-ordination the key to Paul.
*^* Footnote: In "Divine Election" (pp153f) Berkhouwer says that Ephesisns 1:4 is the text which, more than any other, keeps us from "abstractions and determinism in which the traits of the living God, the Father of Jesus Christ, are obscured by the hiddenness and the menace of inscrutable fate."
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 10/24/2001 5:48:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/26/2001 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 12/27/2001 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Is this Calvanist against the idea that God arbitrarily chooses whom he will save?
Thanks Pow
Paul
Our natural greatness is seen as part of God's image, and that natural greatness has been conferred on us to enable us to achieve our supernatural destiny:to be related to God and to obey him freely.---Diogenes Allen | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jake
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 12/27/2001 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | POW
very interesting stuff! the part about being elected in the comprehesive Christ really confused me. could you explain that a little bit more? thanks
Jake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/27/2001 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | faithfullservent, See below for the answer to your question: "Is this Calvanist against the idea that God arbitrarily chooses whom he will save?" You will want to read on!
Jake, here is a good paragraph from Smedes to look at.What follows it is by John Timmer. He might not say exactly the same as Smedes. But they are similar. (Either way, I'll bet that neither fit the common stereotype of Calvinism. Right?)
quote:
This thought must be brought back to our election in Christ, God's election is His "plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him (Eph. 1:10). Christ was elect as the Christ "to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of the cross" (Col. 1:20). He is elect as the one in whom a new creation is brought into being through the reconciliation of men with God at the cross. he is elect as head of His body, the Church, which is the harbinger of the coming new creation. This is the comprehensive sense in which we must think of the election of Jesus Christ. Christ the concrete individual, the Man for others, is elect. But His election, like Israel's, and with Israel's, is the decision of God to create a new world of people in partnership with Him. When we think of election, we must think of God's comprehensive decision to have a "new creation."
Maybe we can illuminate what Smedes meant by quoting a second writer -- John Timmer, a Christian Reformed pastor in Grand Rapids, MI.
quote:
The Banner, Dec. 31, 2001, p. 17
article name: "Election as a Story"
by John Timmer
Election. Some Christians think of it as a sore tooth. They touch it and it hurts. They chew with it and go through the ceiling. They'd just as soon have it extracted.
Other Christians think of election as a computer program. They believe that God has programmed everything far in advance. You spill soup on your $50 tie, you win the lottery, you get pregnant -- it's all been programmed long before you ever appeared on the scene.
Still other Christians think of election as having to do with numbers. They say election is a doctrine that teaches that God decided from all eternity how many people are going to be saved and how many are not. They say there can be no election without reprobation. They say reprobation is the flip side of election and that it follows naturally from the logic of election. They say that if God elects one person our of a group of 100, logic dictates that the remaining 99 are reprobates.
The Story of Election
When talking about election, most people refer to it as a doctrine. But in the Bible election is first of all a story. Any doctrine of election is always a dehydrated version of the biblical story of election. The story of election is always primary and indispensable: any doctrine of election is always secondary and dispensable. The whole tragedy surrounding election is that many Christians have lost the glory and the power of the story of election, having settled for a dehydrated version of it.
. . .Cain. . .Tower of Babel. . .
The story ends without grace. This raises the question. Is God through with the human race? Now, it is at this point that God places himself before the tomb of humanity and cries, "Abraham, come forth!" And he who is dead comes forth. God raises Abraham from among the spiritually dead. God elects Abraham. God's election is an act of resurrection. It is bringing about a new creation in the midst of the old creation. This holds true not only for Abraham, it also holds true for Israel.
. . .The same holds true of the church, God elects what is low and despised in the world, "things that are not," so that no one might boast in the presence of God (1 Cor 1:28-29).
God does not first look over a number of people only then to make a selection. Rather God creates the church. The church is God's new creation. "The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord; she is his new creation by water and the Word."
Abraham, Israel, and the church -- all are alike in that they do not exist before God creates them; all are alike in that they are elected and not selected.
The Way of Election
. . .
. . .
Election Equals Mission
God elected Abraham and his offspring so that God's salvation might reach to the ends of the earth (Isa 49:6). Election is but another word for assignment. Being elected means being assigned a task in history. When God elects, God assigns a task. When God elects Abraham and Israel, God does not elect them to receive special privileges but to bear special responsibilities.
The biblical view of election is a positive view. The Bible does not say that God chooses only a few people and rejects most people. That the Bible says is that, yes, God does choose only a few people, but the few God chooses are the instruments through which God reaches out to all people.
When we think of election as a decision God made back in eternity to save some and not others, we tear election our of the fabric of human history. We then divorce election from what God is doing in history and from what God calls us to do in history. We then talk about election as something that went on in the mind of God long before history ever got started. And who dares presume to know that?
But when we think of election as a story that plays itself our on the plain of history, election is a good news for all people. It then dawns on us that God's election already reaches its goal as early as the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis. Here we read, "All the countries came to Egypt to by grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world" (Gen. 41:57). through Abraham's great-grandson Joseph all the people of the world are blessed by being kept from starvation.
. . .
. . .
Romans 9-11
Three New Testament chapters receiving fresh attention today are Romans 9-11. For centuries only individuals and sectarian groups concerned themselves seriously with Romans 9-11. the church and its theologians were mainly interested in the part of Romans 9-11 that seemed important for the doctrine of individual election. They concerned themselves mainly with texts as "I have loved [=chosen] Jacob, but I have hated [=no chosen] Esau" (9:13, NRSV), and "[God] has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he choses" (9:18, NRSV)
Now, however, many churches and theologians recognize that what is at state in Romans 9-11 is not first of all the election of the one people of God. The question now being asked is, What does it mean that God's call of Israel is "irrevocable" (11:29)? What does it mean that Israel, which now is disobedient, will receive mercy?
. . .
. . .
god's plan for the fulness of time is that Jews and Gentiles together will constitute his people. It is to create in Christ "one new humanity in place of the two" (Eph. 2:15).
Salt and Light
When God elected Abraham and his descendants, God said, "In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." God chose the few to bless the many. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Jesus' images of the church convey precisely the same message: "You are the salt of the earth," "You are the light of the world" (Matt. 5:13-14). Both images refer to something small. Both are minority images. Both are intended to do something for the larger whole.
Salt is small in relation to the food it seasons. The light of oil lamps is small in relation to the surrounding darkness. Salt and light -- both are images that grow out of the language of election. Both are images that reflect the few in relation to the many. Both are images that time us off to Jesus assumption that the elect will be the few in relation to the many.
The question here is not Why did God elect the few? Why did God elect Israel? Whey did God elect the church? The key question here is What is the purpose of those whom God elects?
The greatest abuse of the biblical teaching of election occurs when we divorce election from the mission of the elect. Both Jews and Christians have frequently and mistakenly thought that being a chosen people means being a choice people -- that being the elect means being the elite. But election is always to be understood as a means, not as an end. The salt is for the insipid food. The light is for the darkness. God intends to bless the whole world but whose to do so through the medium of the few. Through God's chosen few, through the salt and the oil-lamp light. God is fashioning a new creation that will eventually and entirely replace the old creation.
........NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER'S CALVINISM..........
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/27/2001 10:51:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/28/2001 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, What do you think of this? Let me stretch things more, and see what happens. Is this a gross oversimplification, or a crystallized clarification?
(No one to blame but me...I'm fair game, folks!!!)
I take the portion where Paul writes "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" to mean, in the simplest unit, that "before the foundation of the world" "He chose us-in-Him" as being the mode of our communion -- a communion of God-with-us. I don't look further than that. I don't look to find mechanical parts which detail the choosing of particular persons. (And because of that I don't feel pinched by the wonderful pronouncement that God does not desire any to perish, but all to be saved.) Looking above, the art teacher in me likes the "us-in-Him" as a visual element. And its pair: "God-with-us". Nice bookends!
In so doing, the aspect of our communion-with-God becomes the subject-at-hand; rather than who's-in-and-who's-not.
Seems to me that that fits very well with what follows, about "to be holy and blameless before Him in love."
What do you think of this?
PotOnWheel | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/28/2002 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/29/2002 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW-
My favorite words by Smedes? Here they are: “Still, the words are in front of us. And words are meant to help our understanding as well as to kindle our devotion.” He’s my kinda Scholastic nut!
In general I liked what Smedes said. If all Calvinists are moving in this direction, praise be to Allah!
Smedes: How does one account for this reality, this "being in Christ"? There is no accounting for it. There is no reason in heaven or earth we should be so blessed.
Tom: Poetry. Hard to interpret! OK, yeah, I suppose there’s nothing in us to recommend to God a reason for loving and choosing us. Love is its own reason.
Smedes: It is a gift. Paul ran from Christ; Christ pursued and overtook him. Paul….
Tom: Is it a gift I can refuse?
Smedes: …Paul is not philosophizing about the eternal plan of an absolute deity.
Tom: Eh, well, yeah, but, eh….
Smedes: Love is not a reason; it is a mystery to sing about.
Tom: Why the either/or? Can’t love be its own reason and we sing about that. Maybe that’s what he’s saying anyhow.
Smedes: We must now turn to the fact that our election was in Christ from before the worlds were made. This means that Christ, too , was elect. And to say this is only to repeat what the New Testament ways again and again. Jesus' death was predestined (Acts 2:23; 4:28)….
Tom: See my final note to you, PoW, below. There are other ways of understanding Christ’s death as determined.
Smedes: The election in Christ is not a matter of numbers. Paul is talking, as we said, as a man dumbfounded that he and we were included in God's election. He is singing of the mercy of God that included us; he is not speculating on why certain others are not included.
Tom: Does nothing follow logically from the different ways people understand this election?
POW: I take the portion where Paul writes "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" to mean, in the simplest unit, that "before the foundation of the world" "He chose us-in-Him" as being the mode of our communion -- a communion of “God-with-us.” I don't look further than that. I don't look to find mechanical parts which detail the choosing of particular persons…
Tom: I too like this very much! Because I don’t think the fall, sin, and the cross were known to God prior to creation as a certainty, I take Paul to be referring the God’s creative purpose for humankind: loving relationship in community with God in and through Christ. It was never God’s intention that this was to be had by us outside of trust and faith. Christ would have been the center even had he never needed to die and suffer for us. This is getting speculative, but so what? In other words, in my mind, had there been no fall, no sin, no cross, I think Paul and we would still be singing “chosen in him before the foundation of the world to be….”
PoW:(And because of that I don't feel pinched by the wonderful pronouncement that God does not desire any to perish, but all to be saved.)
Tom: Then you should only be pinched by understandings of election which challenge your belief that God does not desire “any” to perish but “all” to be saved, right? I mean, you seem to be vague on the mechanics of election, but not vague on the mechanics of love. You seem pretty clear on what “any” and “all” mean, but you seem less than clear about which understanding of election best accounts for such love. In a sense then, it IS about numbers, right? Do you prefer not to attempt to work out the math? You don’t choose any particular understanding of election (other than one which is vague enough to include ‘em all). Am I misunderstanding you?
Tom
PS You entitled the thread "And you thought you knew Calvinism." Do you think Smedes' thoughts are that different than the majority of Calvinists? I don't see that Calvin's own idea of election and predestination can't "fit" into what Smedes says. It's what Smedes doesn't say that interests me.
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/29/2002 10:09:41 AM
Edited by - TGB on 08/29/2002 10:47:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/29/2002 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I too like this very much! Because I don’t think the fall, sin, and the cross were known to God prior to creation as a certainty,
(Whoever I am): But the Incarnation was! And THAT still squares with "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world."
Tom: "This is getting speculative, but so what? In other words, in my mind, had there been no fall, no sin, no cross, I think Paul and we would still be singing “chosen in him before the foundation of the world to be….”"
(Whoever I am): AMEN!
Tom: Then you should only be pinched by understandings of election which challenge your belief that God does not desire “any” to perish but “all” to be saved, right? I mean, you seem to be vague on the mechanics of election, but not vague on the mechanics of love. You seem pretty clear on what “any” and “all” mean, but you seem less than clear about which understanding of election best accounts for such love. In a sense then, it IS about numbers, right? Do you prefer not to attempt to work out the math? You don’t choose any particular understanding of election (other than one which is vague enough to include ‘em all). Am I misunderstanding you?
(Whoever I am): Who ever said that I am a Calvinist. I don't call myself that in after church Bible Study.
Tom's PS: Do you think Smedes' thoughts are that different than the majority of Calvinists? I don't see that Calvin's own idea of election and predestination can't "fit" into what Smedes says. It's what Smedes doesn't say that interests me.
(Whoever I am): Read the links that I left that refer to Van Till, to Machem, and to Princeton. Van Till is in the Middle. Links include:
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1980/v37-1-article6.htm and http://www.markers.com/ink/pkrightr.htm
Oh, DEFINITELY read an article by LEE IRONS. (He's great.) and a board posting by him. Van Till criticises the "Common Sense" rationalism of Princeton, but--according to Irons--buys into the Epistomology.
http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-Jan-1998/msg00053.html
My old collegue John Calvin Vander Stelt (Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa) points out the problems with this. I'll try and find the best little nuggets. Van Till feels that he has to bring together things that the earlier Reformed theologians were willing (for centuries) to just let sit side by side unresolved: like theology and biblical revelation. Sooooo....
to answer your question one way Tom, it is VERY MUCH more Calvinistic to do what you were tongue-tied to respond to at the top, to not fix everything, but to take it as it is. And I did a pretty good job of acting like a Calvinist in the posts you quoted from...er..."somebody" above.
(I'll try to find them.)
quote:
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1980/v37-1-article6.htm
At the same time, increasing attention is being given to the philosophical conditioning of more classical defenses of inerrancy. Rogers and McKim suggest in their book the distorting influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism on Hodge and his followers. A similar case is made by John C. Vander Stelt in Philosophy and Scripture (Mack, 1978), his dissertation at the Free University of Amsterdam. Among the theses prepared for his defense and examination, the first was: "Implied in the Old Princeton view of Scripture is an uncritical acceptance of Common Sense Philosophy."
article "The Battle for the Bible" Rages On, By Donald W. Dayton
Different topic, but don't let this sentence go unnoticed!: "philosophical conditioning of more classical defenses." Would THAT promote a "classical view?"
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2003 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/19/2003 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Maybe PoW and fred should dialogue on this link. You seem to have pretty similar interests..
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/19/2003 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
What follows is pulled from the first post on this thread -- quoting Lewis Smedes.
quote:
What does the doctrine of election tell us about our life in Christ? This is the reverse of the question that one ordinarily asks of this texts: what does the fact that we are chosen in Christ tell us about the doctrine of election? But the two questions are interwoven. And, in a sense, we are forced to ask them both at the same time. For each question, if asked separately, implies that we already have the answer to the other. So we had better ask again about "election in Christ" and also ask if it illumines the reality of our being in Christ.
(Footnote: In "Divine Election" (pp153f) Berkhouwer says that Ephesisns 1:4 is the text which, more than any other, keeps us from "abstractions and determinism in which the traits of the living God, the Father of Jesus Christ, are obscured by the hiddenness and the menace of inscrutable fate.")
What do YOU (DLW) think of his remarks.
And, do you think that the OV's steriotyping of Calvinism (creating a mindless backlash) adds to how "obscured by the hiddenness and the menace of inscrutable fate" God's reputation becomes when the OV debate leads people INTO DISCUSSING ABSTRACTIONS INSTEAD OF REFLECTING ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?
(P.S., Modes may disagree with my disagreeing about the OV, but I think he appreciates how little patience I feel with these abstractions!)
What's your take on the Smede's quote, DLW?
Edited by - fred on 06/19/2003 3:21:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/19/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW,
What follows is pulled from the first post on this thread -- quoting Lewis Smedes.
quote:
What does the doctrine of election tell us about our life in Christ? This is the reverse of the question that one ordinarily asks of this texts: what does the fact that we are chosen in Christ tell us about the doctrine of election? But the two questions are interwoven. And, in a sense, we are forced to ask them both at the same time. For each question, if asked separately, implies that we already have the answer to the other. So we had better ask again about "election in Christ" and also ask if it illumines the reality of our being in Christ.
(Footnote: In "Divine Election" (pp153f) Berkhouwer says that Ephesisns 1:4 is the text which, more than any other, keeps us from "abstractions and determinism in which the traits of the living God, the Father of Jesus Christ, are obscured by the hiddenness and the menace of inscrutable fate.")
What do YOU (DLW) think of his remarks.
I think that deliberating on the mysteries of how much I have inherited from my forebearers and other Christians and how they have enriched my spiritual walk is of profound worth. It takes the focus off of me and onto what role may I be permitted to play in bringing about the Kingdom of God.
quote:
And, do you think that the OV's steriotyping of Calvinism (creating a mindless backlash) adds to how "obscured by the hiddenness and the menace of inscrutable fate" God's reputation becomes when the OV debate leads people INTO DISCUSSING ABSTRACTIONS INSTEAD OF REFLECTING ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?
I agree that OVers often reflect an ahistorical view of theology, whereby the calvinism/arminianism debate goes all the way back to Augustine or what-not. My views on theology I think do not presuppose that there is one right theology and I have benefitted from calvinist traditions. For me, I see OVTheism as saying that we don't need to affirm the use of spatial metaphors for time. Other ontotheologies are appropriate and probably closer to the Old Testament conception of time. But a focus on history and how much is beyond our will can be awe and faith-inspiring. It can also make one a fatalist, but need not do so...
quote:
(P.S., Modes may disagree with my disagreeing about the OV, but I think he appreciates how little patience I feel with these abstractions!)
my apologies, both Pow and fred,
thankyou for your post. It is underestimated and under-responded not unlike some of my own...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | | My SOAPBOX for the evening is asking WHY do people seem to think that for something to be "foreknown" it has to be "determined?" This may or may not be what people are thinking; but I'm going to act as if that is so, and let folks clarify!!!!
So, dy'all think that for something to be "foreknown" it has to be "determined?"
The Calvinism that I know is DYNAMNIC! (Genesis gets more play time than Dordtrecht.) Creational "STRUCTURE," AND , and "Creational Development" get the airtime. Creation Law is king, but potentialities and "creational norms" and "service" are all princes.
No "determinism" in that camp.
'Nuff calling Calvinists "Determinists", y'all.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 6/27/2003 3:50 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW, Fred--Yeah...
I know that we have had this discussion before on the fact that there are different Calvinists. But there are Calvinists whose view on the human will is deterministic. Jonathan Edward's is a prime example ("On the Freedom of the Will"www.ccel.org/e/edwards/will/home.html Also, A. W. Pink (God's Sovereignity and the Human Will www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/PINK2.HTM) Here is an excerpt from Pink quote:
1. THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN WILL
What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will there is preference-the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between alternatives. But there is something which Influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose; therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself; hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves-to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect. 'Ex nihilo nihil fit'-out of nothing, nothing comes.
In all ages, however, there have been those who contended for the absolute freedom or sovereignty of the human will. Men will argue that the will possesses a self-determining power. For example, they say, I can turn my eyes up or down; the mind is quite indifferent which I do; the will must decide. But this is a contradiction in terms, This case supposes that I choose one thing in preference to another, while I am in a state of complete indifference. Manifestly, both cannot be true. But it may be replied that the mind was quite indifferent until it came to have a preference. Exactly; and at that time the will was quiescent, too! But the moment indifference vanished, choice was made, and the fact that indifference gave place to preference, overthrows the argument that the will is capable of choosing between two equal things. As we have said, choice implies the acceptance of one alternative and the rejection of the other or others.
That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a determiner. Who is it that determines the will? We reply, The strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is, varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself, is that which impels the will to act.
Isn't this logic clearly deterministic? And this is the type of Calvinism that I encountered in college from the theology and philosophy departments, as well as my friends who labeled me a heretic for even discussing theology with open theists....
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid
Edited by - rossfadeinout on 06/27/2003 08:52:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2003 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | I have to agree with you, Ross.
It was very interesting noticing the subtle inner conflick in the faces of some of those last year in Bible Study (who like Pink) when I clandestinely quoted the Orthodox Liturgy, that God is "a God who loves mankind."
The Orthodox witness, with every breath, it just that. And the center of the Eucharistic Liturgy is John 3:16!
Edited by - fred on 06/27/2003 2:23:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | So what about that thread that says that Pink is OV? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/24/2003 2:22 AM (GMT -6) | | | Here you go, Laika. You too, John and Paul. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:17 AM (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 |
|
|