There is no "L" in TULIP
Are some men lost, or are all men saved? Doug goes the "some men lost" route, but on the same logic of anti-Calvinists.
After I become more convinced of the post-millennial interpretation, I asked an a-millennial pastor why he thought Calvinist predestination was an unfair, stacked deck, whereas Christ coming back at any time was somehow "fair" for those who had not yet believed at whatever time He did come. I didn't receive a satisfactory answer.
I think as Doug implies here, this is where the real rubber meets the road. Either everyone's saved, or only some are saved. Those who think they are opposing the Calvinist formulation on moral grounds are engaging in logical fallacy, unless they believe that everyone is saved.
Personally, I'm not leaving that option out. But lots of Christians who oppose "predestination" still adhere to there own version of "limited atonement." Either way, it comes down to God creating us with the "free will" to accept or reject Him. Which means it was always up to God all along.
Douglas Wilson writes:
We must begin by rejecting a term that is commonly applied to this doctrine. The rejected term is that of limited atonement. It should be rejected for two reasons. One is that it is misleading with regard to the teaching of the Bible, and the other is that it misrepresents the debate. One of the most obvious features of the atonement in Scripture is its universality. Consequently, a phrase which appears to deny that universality on the surface is not useful. Secondly, every Christian who holds to the reality of eternal judgment believes (in some sense) in a limited atonement. The debate is over what aspect is limited -- efficacy or extent.
***
The debate centers on the meaning of the word for in the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." One position is that Jesus died to give a chance to sinners. The biblical position is that Jesus died instead of sinners.
***
Christ Died For . . .
These are our basic options. Christ died for:
1. All sins of all men
2. All sins of some men
3. Some sins of all men
4. Some sins of some men
If we opt for #3 or #4, then we have to say that no one is saved, because all have some sins to account for. If we say that #1 is the case, then the question is why some men are lost. Because they do not believe. Is this unbelief a sin, or not? If not, why are they condemned for it? If so, then did Jesus die for it? If so, then why are they not saved? If not, then Jesus did not die for all sins -- leaving us with #2.
After I become more convinced of the post-millennial interpretation, I asked an a-millennial pastor why he thought Calvinist predestination was an unfair, stacked deck, whereas Christ coming back at any time was somehow "fair" for those who had not yet believed at whatever time He did come. I didn't receive a satisfactory answer.
I think as Doug implies here, this is where the real rubber meets the road. Either everyone's saved, or only some are saved. Those who think they are opposing the Calvinist formulation on moral grounds are engaging in logical fallacy, unless they believe that everyone is saved.
Personally, I'm not leaving that option out. But lots of Christians who oppose "predestination" still adhere to there own version of "limited atonement." Either way, it comes down to God creating us with the "free will" to accept or reject Him. Which means it was always up to God all along.
Douglas Wilson writes:
We must begin by rejecting a term that is commonly applied to this doctrine. The rejected term is that of limited atonement. It should be rejected for two reasons. One is that it is misleading with regard to the teaching of the Bible, and the other is that it misrepresents the debate. One of the most obvious features of the atonement in Scripture is its universality. Consequently, a phrase which appears to deny that universality on the surface is not useful. Secondly, every Christian who holds to the reality of eternal judgment believes (in some sense) in a limited atonement. The debate is over what aspect is limited -- efficacy or extent.
***
The debate centers on the meaning of the word for in the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." One position is that Jesus died to give a chance to sinners. The biblical position is that Jesus died instead of sinners.
***
Christ Died For . . .
These are our basic options. Christ died for:
1. All sins of all men
2. All sins of some men
3. Some sins of all men
4. Some sins of some men
If we opt for #3 or #4, then we have to say that no one is saved, because all have some sins to account for. If we say that #1 is the case, then the question is why some men are lost. Because they do not believe. Is this unbelief a sin, or not? If not, why are they condemned for it? If so, then did Jesus die for it? If so, then why are they not saved? If not, then Jesus did not die for all sins -- leaving us with #2.
posted by Unknown at 9:54 PM
8 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I strongly urge you to check some of my sidebar links, such as Pantelism, the Preterist Archive, and Free Books. Under Free Books, you may encounter David Chilton's Paradise Restored and Days of Vengeance, and Ken Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell.
The thrust is that the entire New Testament is but a prophesy about the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and Hebrew religion. They just used the similar apocalyptic imagery as in Old Testament prophesy. And the Jewish historian Josephas pretty much confirms all that Jesus and the apostles prophesied.
The obvious charge, of course, is that maybe the entire NT was written after AD70. But beyond that, we'd also have to charge that Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. did not really die, nor does it explain that vast and immediate power of the new religion within one generation of Jesus's death. How could is such mass delusion possible?
Beyond the martyrdom of the early apostles - all pretty much conceded by historians - who had zero, and I mean zero to gain proclaiming a risen Lord if they did not in fact see him, the greatest proof of the New Testament was that everything they said would come to pass did indeed come to pass, in AD70.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
To be honest, one reason is that "liberal" religion is responsible for creating those godlike politicians. Theological orthodoxy among the religious restrains the state. The progressive/liberal movements in religion in the USA is the ideological framework that provides the fascist state.
I'm here just asking questions. And when five hundred people see a dead man walking, and what they say is going to happen happens, I'm not ready to dismiss it out of hand.
By the way, thanks for awarding me a doctorate, even if it's just sarcastic.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
If Christianity is true, I believe it would be true in Catholic or conservative Presbyterian formulations. I don't pay attention to nutty theologies invented in the last 200 years.
The fascist state I refer to had at its architects folks like Herbert Croly and Thomas Dewey 100 years ago. Yes, lots of Christians have bought into it. But not, say, the conservative Christians at LewRockwell or the Constitution party.
I don't know who the Pontificator is.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Writing has purpose and emphasis. That's why there isn't one gospel, and that's why there isn't just one epistle.
To focus just on what Jesus said, only as a generic wise sage, instead of as a particular and well known Jewish rabbi and prophet coming to call for repentence under the context of the Jewish law given by Moses, is to censor about 95% of what he is alleged to have said. (No wise sage would REALLY believe in the miracles of Moses, would he?) Further, if he wasn't speaking and acting with the authority of a respected Jewish rabbi, then to disrupt the temple proceedings would have been the actions of a vandal and rabble-rouser justly deserving harsh punishment (though not Crucifixion).
I'm not interested in Christian apologetics, only pointing out that the existence of other contemporary writings at the time of the Gospels does not suggest the Gospels are refuted.
Lastly: "Rather they point to a person who was very human and this-worldly. He enjoyed life. He liked wine. He cared for people. He mixed with undesirables. He incurred the wrath of the religious people of his day by stepping outside the boundaries of what was regarded as respectable Jewish behavior. He had a great sense of humor. Such faint outlines deeply disappoint those looking for a divine figure."
Sorry to disappoint you, you just depicted the Christ of the Gospels who is worshipped by Christians. You may reject the belief that Jesus was God, but you can't suggest that believers don't accept that he was also fully man.
This sort of apologetics is not the purpose I created the blog. I am aware of,though no expert on, all sorts of charges against the traditional faith. Some no doubt stronger than others.
I don't have time to answer them all, and that was not the purpose for this blog to begin with.
Post a Comment
<< Home