God: I desire all to be saved.
Calvinism: God elects some.
Q.E.D.
1 Like
Nah. Nonsense questions do not need to be entertained, and anyone pursuing them is just being silly, or dare I say foolish. Why isnāt that comparable to asking when is 2 + 2 = 5 (not counting anyoneās imaginative alternate number system ; - )?
Then we need to throw out a lot of the language in the Bible, because it does give us words describing Godās attributes so we may understand him better. There is a big difference between understanding God and the disparaging term ādefiningā him. I think you are maybe obsessing over synonyms?
At the end of the day, Godās omnipresence is not a complex theological construct. Salvation by grace alone is a much more difficult concept for most to handle.
1 Like
Biology (i.e. evolution and the nature of living organisms) is the best answer to that problem. Without those so called ānatural evilsā there simply would be no life. Why? Canāt God do anything. Sure. But logical consistency between means and effect is the difference between dream and reality. Dreams are nice and all but in the end we start looking for something real.
1 Like
There was a mystical rift in the Godhead when Jesus physically died, unlike his incarnation, and thatās exactly why Jesus sweat blood in Gethsemane ā he saw it coming and asked for it to be removed from him, not your normal human facing death, even an excruciatingly painful death.
1 Like
That is confusing means with ends. There are plenty of conservatives who seek to force people to do what they think is best. Calling it love really helps with the emotional blackmail. Liberals are not the only ones who do this and in fact they probably learned it from the conservatives, who did it first.
I personally cannot understand a loving creator who doesnāt, but has to force himself on people. An all powerful God has to be extremely careful about this because it is so easy for Him to do that.
Yes, I think that mindset is wrong, but I think your interpretation is wrong also. I think Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 and thus saying a lot with few words (of course it was difficult to speak). But Psalm 22 was the perfect answer to their mocking of Him.
No. Jesus and the Father are one. There is no space or possibility of any ārift.ā Calling it āmysticalā or a āmysteryā is just a way to sweep the irrationality of made up theological gobble-dee-gook under a metaphorical rug. I think the truth is that such āmysticalā things point to a deeper flaw in the whole theological framework which gives rise to it.
Yes!
I will not argue with that. I do it (make theological constructs) because of my interests and habits (head case that I am). But I will not imagine that this makes them productive. Well aware of my own helplessnessā¦ the futility of what I do is only too likely.
You donāt think there was anything mysterious or mystical about the incarnation either, I expect. It was just an ordinary sort of thing and easy to get our heads around, quickly understood and completely and objectively rational.
Thatās right. I see no reason to use the words āmysticalā and āmysteryā or āmagicalā for it. I certainly donāt see any reason for the Catholic belief in immaculate conception. And while I donāt think the virgin birth is impossible, I see no logical necessity for it either. The incarnation was supernatural only in the sense that this supernatural spiritual being became that natural physical embryo. I donāt think there was any alteration of natural law involved because the event was entirely spiritual.
What about
āThe Spirit works salvation in those and only those who would come to God given such prompting by the Spirit; the only reason that they would want to come to God is through the work of the Spirit; and God knows exactly who those are because he is outside of time.ā
Would a formulation of election like that be acceptable? Because that would be a more accurate description of my views on the subject.
Iāve appealed to this type of thinking many times but I think it just extends the probalem another step, it doesnāt answer it.
*Heaven enters the chatā¦ā
I would just like to point out that Jesus quotes the beginning of the Psalm, when he easily could have quoted the end. I think he has it in view but he was just agonizing in garden before, falling to the floor almost out of control. Now he is abandoned by his followers, and being tortured and nailed to a Roman cross. The simplest meaning is he truly felt abandoned. But trusted in God for what was to come next. It is why he willingly went to the cross despite not wanting to.
I think that appears a more humane view but it certainly raises it own logical questions about free will, rests on an invented and questionable notion (maybe a true one) that because God is outside time he can know things before they happen exhaustively, and there are exegetical questions to be raised with how this coheres with various aspects of scripture. More human but it almost looks like a dues ex machina to me.
This seems to renders preaching the gospel somewhat odd. Iām only doing it because God told me to. Not because someone might genuinely respond to it. People only respond to it if God foreknew their heart and elects them to at that time and he can elect them to do this anytime, whether I choose to follow the great commission or not. I feel this creates a schism between what t I believe and the genuineness of my actions.
I see a lot of questions but certainly its better model than one where God just sends some to hell and picks others to save. At the end of the day, I am not sure why some believe and some donāt. I think scripture offers us far less certainty on this and many other issues the. Many think it does.
Vinnie
That, I will very readily agree with, though probably not on the exact set of issues with lower certainty, given the fact that we are different individuals with different theological backgrounds.
Iād say that preaching is a means by which God effects conversions and maturation in faith, and that God often uses means through human actions, but exactly how that interrelates with election is a mystery to me. As is trying to sort out exactly how Godās sovereignty interacts with human actions.
1 Like
Would he be this God?:
I would still maintain, though, that Godās omnitemporality gives us a different perspective. Granted, not one we easily get our heads around, but remember Judas. He was part of Godās āplanā, a timebound word, but Judas was still fully responsible for his actions.
1 Like
I would just read Psalm 22 (all of it from beginning to end) and not add anything to it.
Trusted in God for what? What was the concern which Jesus was filled with?
I donāt think it was his own life and comfort. 100% human, sure. But human is a large spectrum. So where in that spectrum was Jesus? At the low end or the high end? At the high end of the human spectrum are people who care very little for their own life and comfort and will sacrifice all that for a greater good ā without whining of any kind (the only regret being that they could not do more. That is why I donāt believe this rhetoric about Gethsemane and Jesus cry on the cross being human weakness. I donāt believe it. I cannot aim so low in my regard, when there are so many human beings who do better.
Soā¦ trusted in God for what? I can believe it would be for making it so His work in Israel would not be for nothing. I can believe it would be for revitalizing His disciples to do what He called them to do. That I can believe. Anything less would have me looking elsewhere.
Indeed. That sort of nonsense will get no support from me. All the value I see in Christianity falls apart in that sort of theology. I am not desperate to cling to Christianity. Atheism looks fine to me. My honest opinion is that atheism is wrongā¦ just a little too good to be true, frankly.
Okay, the word there is Ī“ĻĪ¾Ī·Ļ (DOX-ace), genitive from Ī“ĻĪ¾Ī± (Dox-a). In the time of Homer it was used for āopinionā, from a root meaning to seem, to appear, to think, to accept. But Paulās not getting it from classical Greek, heās getting it from the Septuagint ā and the Septuagint effectively changed the meaning due to it being a translation of the Hebrew ×ÖøÖ¼××Ö¹× (ka-bode) the core meaning of which is close to the old slang āheavyā because it conveys both the idea of weight and that of profundity, and so is used in the Old Testament to indicate majesty and grandeur ā indeed the well-known song that calls God āawesomeā is quite on target; Godās āgloryā is His āawesomenessā, His majesty.
A fascinating thing about ×ÖøÖ¼××Ö¹× is that at times it can be seen; at other times it manifests itself in another phenomenon. The most direct manifestation of the latter are the pillar of fire by night and of cloud by day when Israel was in the wilderness. But though interesting, this aspect isnāt involved in the Romans 3 passage. What is likely linked is the idea that Godās ×ÖøÖ¼××Ö¹× arises from His holiness, He āothernessā or apart-ness.
And all of this from the Hebrew carries over into the Greek Ī“ĻĪ¾Ī±, so by the time Paul is writing the word is practically a Greek container for the Hebrew concept.
Give me a Lamborghini and Iāll boast about it ā just long enough to get a good price for it and do some house repairs.
What youāre referencing here is the response to Godās glory; āboastingā is a good word. The standard word is āglorifyingā, which can be defined as declaring Godās majesty. But thatās not what Paul is saying; heās essentially summing up verses 10b - 18 and stating a result: we have sinned, and sin does not declare Godās majesty, thus we have fallen short of Godās glory ā not short of glorifying Him, although that is true, but short of sharing the majesty for which He meant us. We are supposed to be awesome by sharing Godās awesomeness, but the least sin short-circuits that.
2 Likes
Ah, but here is a point where philosophy helps: āsubstanceā in philosophy means the essential characteristics; it does not imply anything at all. So in this instance philosophy rescues the discussion from common understanding.
In this case God is the space that He fills.
Correct. But you guys are arguing around a question posed for debate at a conference I attended long ago: āIs God a thing?ā That was really a way of asking just what noun can we use as a referent for God without dragging in baggage.
This is a point where I like my older brotherās conception of God as an entire universe to/of Himself: He is the void, and He is that which fills it.
The Greek word is better: Ī Ī±Ī½ĻĪæĪŗĻĪ¬ĻĻĻ (pan-toh-KRA-tore) indicates that all the power that there is, is His. That escapes the āHe can do anythingā silliness with its inherent logical contradiction(s). What it tells us is that whatever power something or someone has, that power comes from God. This applies not just to impressive majestic feats of power but to the very least: my fingers tapping my keyboard do so by Godās power; my puppy Knox scratching his neck does so by Godās power; the drops of water freezing outside my window, making an icicle longer happens by Godās power; the photons and electrons carrying the words Iām typing do so by Godās power all just as much as Jesus walking on the water.
= - = + = - = ā = - = + = - =
This is the famous word āį½Ī¼ĪæĪæĻĻĪ¹ĪæĻā (ho-mo-OU-see-ohs); the phrase in the Creed is āį½Ī¼ĪæĪæį½»ĻĪ¹ĪæĪ½ Ļįæ· Ī Ī±ĻĻį½·ā. The word comes from į½Ī¼ĻĻ (ho-MOS), āsameā and Īæį½ĻĪÆĪ± (OO-see-ah) ābeingā or āessenceā, thus ā[of] the same essenceā.
āOf one beingā is an older, somewhat traditional rendition; āof the same essenceā I think was first used by the Orthodox; āof one substanceā was common around seventy-ish years ago. āOf one beingā really doesnāt get the idea across to modern Western folks, I donāt think.
Careful with the spelling! That one vowel in the middle makes a difference: with the āiā it means something will happen soon; with the āaā it means āloomingā (in the older sense) or ādeeply presentā.
Specifically, foreknowledge. Calvinās failure here was a matter of geometry, of regarding God as āstuckā in the same timeline we are. Take that line and add in two more dimensions and foreknowledge no longer means necessary. In fact that is contrary to the scriptures, since there are instances saying something is going to happen but then it doesnāt happen, something else does.
He is so Eastern in this! also very much like Dr. Micahel Heiser (which is probably one of the reasons I really like Heiser).
Here heās not quite so Eastern; the Orthodox are far more likely to just say āDonāt speculateā. Thatās why the East (and Luther) never accepted transubstantiation ā not because itās wrong but because it is speculation.
Oh, so true!
Iāve always put this in the category of āthe mystery of godlinessā that Paul mentions. God āmade Him to be sinā is just mind-boggling and admits of no sensible explanation.
Interestingly when Jesus first starts preaching His proclamation is almost always misunderstood, especially in the West: we take "the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the good newsā as a pair of statements where ārepentā is something to be done once; instead there are two things we miss ā first, that the command to repent is in the present imperative form that is far better translated as ābe repentingā; second, that this is in parallel with the first statement and so being repenting and believing the good news is what constitutes our transition to the Kingdom. Thus when we pray āYour Kingdom comeā we are praying that we will keep repenting and keep believing and in doing so will spread that message to others.
2 Likes
That reminds of the present continuous tense shown in the YLT of John 14:21:
Not being an antinomian, thanks for showing me another āruleā ā not to be legalistic about, but another one of the moral ālaws of loveā, a ruler to test ourselves against, āBe repenting!ā (Not just parenthetically, Iām not enough like that.)
It does give some credence to the Orthodox contention that works are necessary, doesnāt it?
1 Like
And if weāre not testing, weāre not being. (Thatās reminiscent of academia ā if weāre skipping tests, weāre not being good students. ; - ) I donāt think you have to be Orthodox to affirm the latter half of James 2. 