 |
| 
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/25/2004 12:15 PM (GMT -6) |   | What is the difference between worldly guilt and Godly guilt as found in 2 Corinthinas 7? Is it "true" guilt/conviction if repentance does not follow? would you even be willing to say that guilt and conviction can be the same thing? And you would also be willing to say that some do feel true remourse without repentance?
2 Cor. 7:9-12: "Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; bot the sorrow of th eworld produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, wht clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter. Therefore, although I wrote you, I did not do it for the sake of him who had dnone the wrong, nor for the sake of him who suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear to you."
Our ideas on your meritous salvation are differing. And I still do not feel as though my initial question, the root of the idea, was answered. Do you ever see anywhere in all of Scripture God praising or even acknowledging that man had anything to do with his salvation? (Ps. 65:4).
Atonement:
(for the sake of the matter, so that there is not another book published; I will merely respond with Scripture showing that the death of Christ was penal substitution. Many a more men smarter than I have dealt with this topic, and the Bible itself; therefore upon the Holy Writ's words I stand and upon the testimony of hundreds of other well respected good Christians.)
Lev 17:11; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 John 4:10; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 7:26-27; 1 Peter 3:18; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Cor. 1:30. the texts go on and on.
Borg
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/26/2004 1:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
would you even be willing to say that guilt and conviction can be the same thing?
Not at all, for all who have sinned are truly guilty before God (Romans 1, 2, & 3), and yet not everyone has come to the conviction of their guiltiness.
quote:
And you would also be willing to say that some do feel true remourse without repentance?
Sure, just like Hebrews says Esau could find no place of repentance, though he sought it with TEARS.
quote:
Our ideas on your meritous salvation are differing.
This statement by you assumes that which it has not proven. I categorically, UNEQUIVOCALLY deny that there even CAN BE a "meritorious salvation." Grace is gratuitous, not merited.
quote:
And I still do not feel as though my initial question, the root of the idea, was answered. Do you ever see anywhere in all of Scripture God praising or even acknowledging that man had anything to do with his salvation? (Ps. 65:4).
This is really two questions. First, no, I don't ever see anywhere in all of Scripture where God praises man. To the second question, the Scripture in many places affirms that man has a part to play in his salvation; i.e., "work out your OWN salvation with fear and trembling..." "save yourselves from this wicked and untoward generation," "thy faith hath saved thee," etc.
quote:
Atonement:
(for the sake of the matter, so that there is not another book published; I will merely respond with Scripture showing that the death of Christ was penal substitution.
Lev 17:11; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 John 4:10; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 7:26-27; 1 Peter 3:18; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Cor. 1:30. the texts go on and on.
Let's look at these scriptures, shall we?
Lev 17:11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'
(nothing about penal substitution in this verse).
1 Cor 15:3 ¶ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(All theories of the atonement agree that Christ died for our sins; but again, penal substitution is being read into this verse by most who use it as a proof text).
2 Cor 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(Most commentators see Paul as herein alluding to the OT concept of a "sin offering," which of course could not be a penal substitution in any reasonable sense).
1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation for our sins.
("Propitiation" is also rendered "mercy seat," which provides an absolutely beautiful illustration of precisely how Christ's death provides forgiveness of sins to believers).
Heb 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 7:26 ¶ For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the {sins} of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
Heb 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
(As in all the other NT passages which speak of Christ's death as a sacrifice for sin, the penal substitution concept is simply not anywhere in the context. A sacrifice of an innocent, whether a lamb or a Man, never was a penal substitution, nor could it be).
1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
(As in all the passages which speak of Christ dying FOR sins, there is no need to read penal substitution (PS) into his redemptive act, any more than there would be to read PS into anyone laying down his life FOR his friends. That God suffers on account of (for) mankind's sins is clear throughout Scripture, and does not require a PS view of the atonement to make sense).
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--
(Christ became "cursed" for our sakes, but again, this does not necessitate that we think of Him as "punished" in our place. At most, this would only be a relative punishment for sins, not an exact one, as the penal substitution view requires).
1 Cor 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
(It is not clear at all how one might find penal substitution in the above verse).
Respectfully,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/26/2004 2:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
Online books and article that I heartily recommend on this are at the following link:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/index.html
The work of John Miley (a 19th century Methodist theologian) in this field is excellent:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/testing.html
Charles Finney's relatively brief teaching on this subject is concise and to the point:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/finatone.html
Also, Finney's teaching on how Christ's death was substitutionary (but not penal) in nature is important:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/substitution.html
Albert Barnes, (noted 19th century "New School" theologian) published an outstanding book on the atonement:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/barnes/index.html
Pastor Dean Harvey, a personal friend of mine, wrote the following short article on the subject:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/atone.html
Dr. P.P. Waldenstrom, Swedish pietist theologian, does an outstanding job showing that the atonement was not due to any unwillingness on the part of GOD to forgive, but rather was calculated to bring MAN to repentance and reconciliation with his Creator:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/reconcil.html
Dennis Carroll, another good friend of mine, has written an enlightening study on the sense in which Christ died "FOR" our sins:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/huper_for.htm
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/26/2004 3:21 AM (GMT -6) | | John,quote:
This is really two questions. First, no, I don't ever see anywhere in all of Scripture where God praises man.
I agree with you that man nowhere merits salvation. While God never calls an unsaved sinner "good" and whoever teaches this is in error, there are, however, some passages that God does "praise" man but I don't think that they affect your argument as they relate to saved men. I am sure that you can think of others as well but your statement needs to be qualified.
“His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master."
They were stoned, £they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.
‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.
And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/26/2004 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | John-
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do you agree that all people ought to do right? If so, how can it be merit to simply do what one ought to do? If I'm a criminal condemned to death, and the governor offers me a pardon with certain conditions attached (like truly repenting for my past crimes and sincerely intending to do what's right to the best of my ability from then on), how did I EARN or merit anything?"
Is the act of repenting a work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a meritorious one. It is everyone's DUTY, or else no one can deserve Hell.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I tell you that I have a paycheck for $1000 written out to you and you have to take it (because I am the govenor of the state and I have commanded it of you) but you have to do the work that the $1000 demands, did you merit the money with your work? Or was the money merely an act of grace given to you, though you would not have recieved it had you not worked? Do you recieve the $1000 based on your earning it (doing the work) or on the basis of another's work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, there can be NO merit in merely receiving a GIFT proferred.
I have a question about these comments in which I highlighted between you and Borg. I have heard this a few times that it is not work to just accept a gift. If it there is no merit for accepting God's free gift, then why, on the other side of the coin, is one punished for not accepting it? I'll use the example you used it a different discussion, that we should not expect merit for accepting a birthday or christmas present. I don't know about you guys, but I have never been threatened with eternal hell fire for not accepting a birthday gift.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/27/2004 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey all,
So I'm not giving up on this thread... Still hoping to hear more from Tom and Alan (and anyone else for that matter)
John, those links about the atonement were great. The really funny thing is that when yo mentioned the article by John Miley, I remembered that I had his 2 volume Systematic Theology. (I ordered it on the internet, Wayne Grudam says in his Systematic theology that Miley was the most thorough and coherent Arminian Systematic Theologian he had ever read)
So I found that Miley has a fairly large section devoted to "Free Agency." So far I've read his discussion what is involved in freedom of choice. He spends several pages arguing against compatibalism. He states the compatibalists position on page 276, saying
"That motives determine our volitions or choices, and that choice must go with the stronger or strongest motive, is the doctrine of many."
He quotes from Jonathan Edwards as the primary proponent of this position. Edwards says quote:
the will is always, and in every individual act, necessarily determined by the strongest motive; and so is always unable to go against the motive which, all things considered, has now the greatest strength and advantage to move the will.
I'm looking forward to his critique of this theory, and his explanation of how we exercise LFW.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/27/2004 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Ross,
Yeah, I've got Miley's two-volume Syst. Theo., too. He is very good. From my study of Edwards' compatibilistic theory, it seems to me that, while it is true as far as it goes, it does not go far enough in describing free will, for Edwards' theory totally ignores the intellect and deliberative process in decision-making. Because of this fatal flaw, Edwards' theory makes us into nothing more than animals or robots, who are governed by involuntary impulses.
Anyway, that's presently my understanding of this issue. The best definition of LFW is that it is simply the power of contrary moral choice. (In any given moral situation, a moral agent has the ability to choose to accept or reject the object of choice).
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/27/2004 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Hi Lock,
Sin is what merits damnation. I think we will agree that rejecting Christ is sin. It's not unlike having a cancerous tumor that can only be cured by radical surgery. In submitting to the conditions of the cure; i.e., allowing the Surgeon to do his work, one is definitely not "earning" anything at all, nor can the patient take credit for the success of the operation. And one's guilt is greatly compounded if one rejects the proferred gracious cure.
Hope this helps,
John
The patient must pay money for the doctor's services. Similiar to the belief of choosing God's gift. In order to recieve God's gift of grace, we first must humble ourselves and accept what has been given us. It is not that it is work or deserves merit, but that you put it forth as a requirement to salvation, that one must accept it. Just like it is a requirement to pay the doctor for his services towards curing the cancer. We would not recieve any merit for paying the money for the services, but it is still a requirement.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/27/2004 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Hi Ross,
Yeah, I've got Miley's two-volume Syst. Theo., too. He is very good. From my study of Edwards' compatibilistic theory, it seems to me that, while it is true as far as it goes, it does not go far enough in describing free will, for Edwards' theory totally ignores the intellect and deliberative process in decision-making. Because of this fatal flaw, Edwards' theory makes us into nothing more than animals or robots, who are governed by involuntary impulses.
Anyway, that's presently my understanding of this issue. The best definition of LFW is that it is simply the power of contrary moral choice. (In any given moral situation, a moral agent has the ability to choose to accept or reject the object of choice).
John
John,
The deliberative process (choosing and rejecting based upon rational thought and subjective inputs) seems very much a part of Edward's arguments. I don't understand Edwards reducing humans to animals that react to instinct as much as he describes man using his powers of reason to maximize the satisfaction of his desires. Many of these desires (even within the base and carnal ones) are mutually exclusive. I cannot rape and pillage AND be thought of as the upstanding pillar in our community at the same time. Thus, we sincerely struggle and use our reason to analyse and finally decide which choice maximizes an extremely complex and weighted set of desires.
When we become a Christian, the real battle begins for choosing in that now "righteous desires" are included within our complex process of maximization. This is far more complex than a "robot" or "animal instinct" and I thnk that the process is difficult to isolate and scrutinize. It is this context, that of a converted person, that I read Romans 7,
I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/27/2004 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Hi Spen,
While I agree that there is in Edwards' view an element of intelligent deliberation, in the final analysis one is only free to do what one's desires dictate. One is free to do as one desires, but one's desires are determined/given by God.
This denies any REAL ability to choose between two options, for all one's choices are determined according to one's strongest desire in each circumstance. It is a failure to distinguish between desire and will (which, by the way, is clearly underscored in Romans 7, when Paul says he has the DESIRE to do right ("wants (desires/wishes) to do good"), but is not able to perform (will) it. This is because in Romans 7 Paul is describing a legalistic approach to righteousness, apart from faith in Christ and the Spirit (as Romans 6 and 8:1-14 graphically depict). )
John
I am not sure that I have any will that is apart from desire. To me it seems that the gospel's effect in us is powered by gratitude which I would call a desire. Perhaps that is where we differ, I believe that our will is bound by our desires and you believe that it is freestanding, apart from our desires. If this is true, I would consider a "freestanding will apart from desires" as much more robotic than a "will linked to desires." The freestanding will seems to be something I could work with in a computer program with soe boolean (yes/no) field. Apparently this is where you see my argument leading. That's OK. It is the gospel that is central and the "how we end up believing" seems much less important than "that we do believe the content of the gospel and its sufficiency for covering even our sins."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/27/2004 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Spen,
It is not my view that the will is "free standing" or "apart from desire." The will is clearly influenced by desires (though not coerced). However, one can choose to go against one's desires (such as, in deciding not to stare at a beautiful woman to the point that unlawful desires ignite).
It is not clear to me how in the compatibilistic view we are truly responsible for our actions, for as you admit, our strongest desire determines what we choose. In this scenario, the child molester (and any other criminal) finds the PERFECT excuse for his behavior--he simply couldn't help himself, he HAD to do as his desires dictated.
As it concerns the Gospel, I think we will both agree that the Gospel contains objective truth which must be cognitively believed upon in order for it to be effective in our lives, whatever "feelings" one may have about the message. Again, if the will is not given the place of ascendancy in one's personality, and the desires or feelings are allowed to rule us, we are in great danger of becoming either antinomians who don't think we can do other than what we desire, or perhaps just as bad, we become bound by emotionalism.
While biblical faith in God certainly has an emotional element to it, it is not essentially emotional, but rather cognitive (based on truth about God perceived by the intellect) and volitional (a choice one makes). Proper emotions should indeed follow such a momentous choice, but to try to work up one's emotions in an effort to "have faith" is clearly contrary to the demands of the Gospel.
It's similar to if my wife asks me do I love her. Ultimately, it is a steadfast choice of my will that allows me to truly say I love her (in the biblical sense of true benevolence toward another). It would be quite silly (and quite stupid) for me to respond with, "I just don't FEEL anything, honey."
The emotions of love, which modern-day thinking has terribly confused with true love, typically will follow as appropriate from the ultimate choice, but as we all know emotions are quite fluctuant, and are not an accurate indicator of whether true love exists in one's heart or not.
Virtually everything I do as a husband and father is regulated by the basic principle that I love my wife and daughter. I go to work to make money to provide a living for them. I change my daughter's diapers because I love her (act in her best interest or highest good). I discipline my daughter because I love her (as the Lord loves those whom He disciplines). I keep the lines of communication open with my wife because I love her. I take the trash out because I love her. Etc., etc. Emotionally, I may not FEEL like (desire) doing some of these things sometimes. However, because my heart, mind, and will is fixed upon loving my wife and daughter as God has loved me, to the best of my ability I CHOOSE to override my feelings, and choose to do what is right.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/27/2004 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Hi Spen,
It is not my view that the will is "free standing" or "apart from desire." The will is clearly influenced by desires (though not coerced). However, one can choose to go against one's desires (such as, in deciding not to stare at a beautiful woman to the point that unlawful desires ignite).
It is not clear to me how in the compatibilistic view we are truly responsible for our actions, for as you admit, our strongest desire determines what we choose. In this scenario, the child molester (and any other criminal) finds the PERFECT excuse for his behavior--he simply couldn't help himself, he HAD to do as his desires dictated.
As it concerns the Gospel, I think we will both agree that the Gospel contains objective truth which must be cognitively believed upon in order for it to be effective in our lives, whatever "feelings" one may have about the message. Again, if the will is not given the place of ascendancy in one's personality, and the desires or feelings are allowed to rule us, we are in great danger of becoming either antinomians who don't think we can do other than what we desire, or perhaps just as bad, we become bound by emotionalism.
While biblical faith in God certainly has an emotional element to it, it is not essentially emotional, but rather cognitive (based on truth about God perceived by the intellect) and volitional (a choice one makes). Proper emotions should indeed follow such a momentous choice, but to try to work up one's emotions in an effort to "have faith" is clearly contrary to the demands of the Gospel.
It's similar to if my wife asks me do I love her. Ultimately, it is a steadfast choice of my will that allows me to truly say I love her (in the biblical sense of true benevolence toward another). It would be quite silly (and quite stupid) for me to respond with, "I just don't FEEL anything, honey."
The emotions of love, which modern-day thinking has terribly confused with true love, typically will follow as appropriate from the ultimate choice, but as we all know emotions are quite fluctuant, and are not an accurate indicator of whether true love exists in one's heart or not.
Virtually everything I do as a husband and father is regulated by the basic principle that I love my wife and daughter. I go to work to make money to provide a living for them. I change my daughter's diapers because I love her (act in her best interest or highest good). I discipline my daughter because I love her (as the Lord loves those whom He disciplines). I keep the lines of communication open with my wife because I love her. I take the trash out because I love her. Etc., etc. Emotionally, I may not FEEL like (desire) doing some of these things sometimes. However, because my heart, mind, and will is fixed upon loving my wife and daughter as God has loved me, to the best of my ability I CHOOSE to override my feelings, and choose to do what is right.
John,
I follow your arguments and see much in common with our beliefs. I also use the example of marriage "love" to illustrate that love is much more decision-based than passion-based. Emotions follow and are subjugated to the decision. I am sure that we agree here.
When you say "However, one can choose to go against one's desires (such as, in deciding not to stare at a beautiful woman to the point that unlawful desires ignite)." You seem to be placing your "choice" outside or contrasting it with desire. In one sense I agree with you and understand you. However, I am looking at the same situation differently and saying the REASON you choose to not stare is also based upon a desire, a differnt one. The desire may be to please God, or to secure your own righteousness, or something else (either good or bad) but this choice to not look is not "freestanding" either but springs from a desire itself.
I believe that the Gospel would be manifested such that such a choice came because God's desires have become part of our own hearts, and our choices reflected this. They may be conscious (rational and thought intensive) or impulsive and instantaneous but they still would reflect desires as I look at the issue. I think that you must attempt to exclude desires from rational decision making and I see this as still being "desire based" but simply on a higher plane.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/27/2004 4:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
The emotions of love, which modern-day thinking has terribly confused with true love, typically will follow as appropriate from the ultimate choice, but as we all know emotions are quite fluctuant, and are not an accurate indicator of whether true love exists in one's heart or not.
AMEN | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/28/2004 2:21 AM (GMT -6) | | | Thought I'd just add a note on the quantum mechanics issue...I'm not sure that the notion doesn't lend support to ideas of LFW - I think it all depends on how you interpret it. You could look at it as being down to chance how everything works out, or perhaps it might be possible to look at it as it being somehow up to the electron or whatever where it goes/what it does....the electron, being blind, obviously won't make intelligent choices, but perhaps if what happens is somehow grounded in the particles then that might lend support to LFW. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/28/2004 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Hi Lock,
Sin is what merits damnation. I think we will agree that rejecting Christ is sin. It's not unlike having a cancerous tumor that can only be cured by radical surgery. In submitting to the conditions of the cure; i.e., allowing the Surgeon to do his work, one is definitely not "earning" anything at all, nor can the patient take credit for the success of the operation. And one's guilt is greatly compounded if one rejects the proferred gracious cure.
Hope this helps,
John
The patient must pay money for the doctor's services.
When I refer to "the gracious cure," the obvious implication is that the doctor is granting his services pro bono (by grace).
Now wait a minute John-
What about the requirement that is put on salvation? You say that a person must "choose to accept" God's gift of grace in order to be saved. This is a requirement, just like paying for a doctor's services. No merit for doing it, but still a requirement.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/28/2004 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a couple of quick thoughts...
I really like the exchange between John and Spen Lake. It illustrates the "problem" of free will. I understand the compatibalistic interpretation to John's position given by Spen; the reason that you don't follow the initial desire (to look at the woman in lust, to stay away from a dirty diaper) is because you have another, greater desire (to please God, to have your daughter happy and healthy).
But John brings up the GREAT DIFFICULTY of Spen's position when he says quote:
It is not clear to me how in the compatibilistic view we are truly responsible for our actions, for as you admit, our strongest desire determines what we choose. In this scenario, the child molester (and any other criminal) finds the PERFECT excuse for his behavior--he simply couldn't help himself, he HAD to do as his desires dictated.
I would really like to hear an explanation as to how God can hold us responsible for actions that were caused by our greates desire, desires that were given to us ultimately BY GOD. This seems especially difficult if you believe in eternal conscious punishment in hell of those who do not accept the gospel.
Would really like to hear your take on this Spen!
I still haven't got a chance to look at Miley's description of how we exercise LFW. I have actually got sidetracked from Miley's Systematic Theology because I picked up "Free Will: A Very Short Introduction" by Thomas Pink (recommended by Tom) Pink claims not only to give an overview of the problem of free will but also to make a defense of LFW. I'm going to try to post chapter summaries as I get the chance.
Tom, are you reading through Pink's book? Alan, are you still around?
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/28/2004 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Just a couple of quick thoughts...
I really like the exchange between John and Spen Lake. It illustrates the "problem" of free will. I understand the compatibalistic interpretation to John's position given by Spen; the reason that you don't follow the initial desire (to look at the woman in lust, to stay away from a dirty diaper) is because you have another, greater desire (to please God, to have your daughter happy and healthy).
But John brings up the GREAT DIFFICULTY of Spen's position when he says quote:
It is not clear to me how in the compatibilistic view we are truly responsible for our actions, for as you admit, our strongest desire determines what we choose. In this scenario, the child molester (and any other criminal) finds the PERFECT excuse for his behavior--he simply couldn't help himself, he HAD to do as his desires dictated.
I would really like to hear an explanation as to how God can hold us responsible for actions that were caused by our greates desire, desires that were given to us ultimately BY GOD. This seems especially difficult if you believe in eternal conscious punishment in hell of those who do not accept the gospel.
Would really like to hear your take on this Spen!
I still haven't got a chance to look at Miley's description of how we exercise LFW. I have actually got sidetracked from Miley's Systematic Theology because I picked up "Free Will: A Very Short Introduction" by Thomas Pink (recommended by Tom) Pink claims not only to give an overview of the problem of free will but also to make a defense of LFW. I'm going to try to post chapter summaries as I get the chance.
Tom, are you reading through Pink's book? Alan, are you still around?
Ross
Ross,
I believe that scriptures bring BOTH truths to us and that I am to believe as truth both my responsiblity to choose (and therefore the justice of my punishment when I choose contrary to the standard of perfect goodness that God has extablished) and God's sovereignty. I think that it is important to preach the whole council of God and work through and preach each passage as it comes.
Where and exactly "how" these two issues meet together is a mystery to me and I offer no solution in a neat and tidy bow. For me I leave it in the "transcendent" and hidden portion of God that I just don't fully understand and internalize. This is probably small comfort if you need to put it all tidy, I simply don't see a better alternative.The issues raised by the OV for me seem to leave just as much unanswered as the hyper-calvinists. (Obviously, my opinion is a minority here and many disagree with me.) In any case, I don't think that the OV issue is "core" or fatal as long as we agree that believing on the gospel and the work of Christ is what is central to salvation and sanctification. The "how" and details of the process is less important than that the beliving occurs and one is converted.
Perhaps we end up with a discussion with people presenting arguments on the nature of energy with arguments being, "Is light a particle or a wave?" I see both perspectives in scriptures and believe and teach both personal responsiblity and sovereignty. In as much as those on this board agree with and proclaim the gospel I stand beside them and with them in their work.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/28/2004 5:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Ross: Tom, are you reading through Pink's book? Alan, are you still around?
Tom: I'm on my way over to Barnes & Noble right now to finish it with a Grande Vanilla Latte--compatibilistically (by now  ) chosen.
You'll like Pink. I haven't read him before. Pretty good.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/28/2004 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I would really like to hear an explanation as to how God can hold us responsible for actions that were caused by our greates desire, desires that were given to us ultimately BY GOD. This seems especially difficult if you believe in eternal conscious punishment in hell of those who do not accept the gospel.
As John posted, the desires that are in the flesh are basic desires which lead us away from God and towards sin (James 1:14-15). Those whose disposition is towards the flesh will mind these basic desires. But when you speak of a evil acts such as child molestation, this is beyond those basic desires which lead us away from God. Matt. 15:19 and Mark 7:21 tells us that out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts; murders, adultries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphamies. Even though all are born with the flesh and its desires that lead us away from God, which leads to missing the mark of God's glory (sin), man is responsible for the evil which procedes out of his heart, in which he puts into actions. God will judge the rest of the dead according to their acts (Rev. 20:12). God's judgement is just (Rom. 2:6). I can only assume that God's judgment of a child molestor will be more severe then His judgment upon a non-believing doctor who volunteers to go the South America every few years to service impoverished children. I agree that this poses a problem for those who believe in hell. Should a child molestor and the doctor from the example above both go to the same hell and both spend the rest of eternity there? Would this be a fair judgment?
One last thing to consider. When a parent punishes a child for doing something wrong, does the parent punish to benefit themselves or the child? The object ultimately is to benefit the child. When God judges man according to his acts, why should we assume that it is not untilmately for man's greater good, just like a good parent?
Now if this is the case, would it be too much to consider that it was within God's purpose for man to sin, come into the knowledge of good and evil, choose to follow his own path of sin and evil, be justly judged by his Creator, recieve the judgment that fits the crime, through this just judgment realize his need for God, and then finally rest assured in God's grace which is freely given him through Christ?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/28/2004 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Hi Lock,
Sin is what merits damnation. I think we will agree that rejecting Christ is sin. It's not unlike having a cancerous tumor that can only be cured by radical surgery. In submitting to the conditions of the cure; i.e., allowing the Surgeon to do his work, one is definitely not "earning" anything at all, nor can the patient take credit for the success of the operation. And one's guilt is greatly compounded if one rejects the proferred gracious cure.
Hope this helps,
John
The patient must pay money for the doctor's services.
When I refer to "the gracious cure," the obvious implication is that the doctor is granting his services pro bono (by grace).
Now wait a minute John-
What about the requirement that is put on salvation? You say that a person must "choose to accept" God's gift of grace in order to be saved. This is a requirement, just like paying for a doctor's services. No merit for doing it, but still a requirement.
God is perfectly justified in placing conditions on salvation; the Scriptures clearly show this when unbelievers are directly exhorted to repent and believe the Gospel. Submitting to the claims of the Gospel cannot be meritorious in any way. And yes, it is a requirement, or else we hurl cavils at the very word of God which commands all men everywhere to repent.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:32 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 |
|
|