 |
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/13/2005 11:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | Meph,
No time to write at the moment, but I wanted to at least say that I wasn't at all insinuating that you were advocating a necessary-revealing of God's glory. Not at all. (You know, I groove better with audio than site. Wish I could hear everything I write! I'd be able to clean it up a bit, you know!)
Anyway, I'll get back to this soon. No computer at the moment. Using work's. Must get computer running. Must have DSL. Must not move anymore, because moving sucks...and takes me away from computer...
Thanks,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GODesteem
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 8/16/2005 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry for coming in here late. Your endless philisophical musings surely give one a headache! I will have to spend much more time (if I can find it later on) on your whole line of thought, but for now let me try to make a few comments.
MephEternal's argument:
If these things are true...
1) God really always seeks to maximize God's own glorification.
2) God is ultimately sovereign over all things.
3) God is MOST GLORIFIED in a being when said being acknowledges, internalizes, reflects celebrates, and rejoices in God's manifold aspects of perfection. (all of this is "satisfaction" in God)
4) There exists a possible world that CAN be actualized by God where all sentient beings can end up satisfied in God.
My comments:
The problem if when you go from 3) to 4). "God's manifold aspects of perfection" MUST include his complete hatred of sin, i.e. absolute righteousness, and willingness to vindicate His name when we have ignored God and treasured everything but Him. Hence the only way your premise #4 would work would be if all sentient beings never had the possibility of sinning, ever at any time. Only then would God not be "demanded" to vindicate His infinite worth.
Meph continues:
"See, given his stance on original sin and salvation by faith alone, I thought I knew that he would just go ahead and say the obvious: Babies who die in their depraved state are going to hell."
My comments:
Why is it obvious? Piper and virtually all Calvinists really like to let scripture interpret scripture, rather than speculating a whole lot. To say "babies who die in their depraved state are going to hell" simply shows someone who is naive - do you actually think Piper is the first "Calvinist" who has written something not so "obvious" regarding the destination of dead infants?
Onto your next argument, attempting to summarize Piper's position:
1) He leaned on the idea of God being JUST as far as why infants would be ABSOLVED by God, even though they were depraved and deserving of death and hell.
2) He says that this NON-FAITH movement would be done thorugh Christ.
3) He proposes a post mortem arrangement where the babies develop and come to faith so that they CHOOSE Christ [Note: this is EXACTLY what Doc says!!!]
My comments:
Proposition #2 is a half-truth. Piper explicitly states that "babies will grow up in the kingdom (either immediately, or over time) and will by God's grace come to faith so that their justification is by faith alone just like ours." Notice the word faith used twice in the same sentence. Proposition #3 is completely false - Piper, as you have stated, believes in unconditional election, and hence these babies would have been chosen to eternal life before the beginning of time. You somehow forgot to include this paragraph in your summary:
"It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the individual). As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy."
Also notice the last sentence of that paragraph - "God's justice in condemnation will be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing transgression." This, of course totally destroys your universalistic treatise, at least in trying to turn John Piper's thoughts towards such an idea (which of course he would vehemently deny).
Mepheternal:
"Surely, he knows what this means. Surely, he sees the immediate implications for people who have mental retardation. Surely, he see the implications that this has for people who are blind and deaf like Helen Keller. Surely, he sees that he is basically saying that IGNORANCE truly is an excuse to God...that even BYPASSES the original sin and depravity that all human beings supposedly have."
Me again:
Piper's point is that some do not have the "natural capacity to see and understand the revelation of God's glory" - how you can compare someone who has a mental disability with a physical disability is quite amazing. This "ignorance", as you call it, does not "bypass" anything - it is unconditional election - some get mercy, others get judgement! It has NOTHING to do with the person, EVERYTHING to do with God's personal, FREE choice. I know Piper is "guessing" at times, and speculating on some things, but surely he is not "grasping at straws", as I believe he is trying to grapple with a very difficult subject while remaining faithful to the whole counsel of GOD.
Last Mepheternal quote:
"It's not about US at all. It's about God and God's glory. God will NOT do eventual universal reconciliation merely for OUR sake (even though we are glad beneficiaries) God will do it for God's own blessed NAME'S SAKE!"
My last point:
God will NOT do eventual universal reconciliation because of His name's sake...
"God's justice in condemnation will be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing transgression."
P.S. "But as this point, I have just gone from 97.9% universalist to 100%."
Boy, I would have hated to be in that 2.1% group before your latest conversion! :c)
Benjamin "Open Theism is far too open" Musclow | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/16/2005 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | GodEsteem,
I'll let you read more before I engage your stuff. For real. Why? Because anyone who doesn't understand that I AFFIRM God's "complete hatred of sin, i.e. absolute righteousness, and willingness to vindicate His name when we have ignored God and treasured everything but Him" doesn't understand my position or the ultimate philosophical bases upon which it stands...at all. You said your statements were preliminary anyways.
So, maybe we'll try this later.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:32 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 |
|
|