WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
On the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth, John Piper writes about the Reformer's impact on America. 
Pixels
When I was a new and callow Christian, someone told me never to sing “I have decided to follow Jesus” because it is Arminian. I had been tipped off about Arminians (though I had never encountered one in the wild) — persons who thought too highly of man’s capability, and who believed that man is able to thwart God’s will.
That one took a long time to get over. But now I sing “I have decided to follow Jesus,” and “Today (As for me and my House)” and “Just as I am I come,” and any number of other dicey hymns. I do it because I see that the Bible uses that kind of language in places, language that calls me to make a decision for Christ, language that warns of dire consequences of not doing so. So if it’s good enough for the Bible it’s good enough for me. (I also sing plenty of songs about grace and how God delivered me, which is also in the Bible.)
Nowadays I think of the teachings of Scripture as similar to the pixels of a picture. The contents of God’s mind would burst the seams of my wineskins. But he “translates” his mysteries into tiny components of the image, arranged side by side for me to read and meditate on each one. The more I read of his Word, the more pixels I gather, and the higher the “resolution” and sharper and more accurate the perception of Truth.
back to top66 Comments to “Pixels”
What magnificent imagery. Thank you, Andree
Report comment to moderator
It’s one of those paradoxes (or is it paradoces?) such as were discussed in another thread the other day. Yet somehow, by God’s grace, He enables us to understand both “sides.”
Report comment to moderator
Great article. The same inerrant and infallible Word of God that teaches “Because the carnal mind is enmity agianst God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” teaches “Choose this Day whom ye will serve”. Inability does not preclude responsibility. If you’re in an accident and before being in one, you signed your name on a loan, your inability to work to pay off the loan does not negate your responsibility to pay.
I don’t like evangelical diddies like that one, but the concept of deciding to follow the Lord Jesus Christ and forsake wickedness is definitely biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Andrée!
Mommy, that would be paradoxen.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you again Andree for a wonderful piece. We who believe there is some choice in the matter are typically overcome by the intellectual assualt of the Calvinists. I fear they are preparing a vicious counteract as I type… :>)
Report comment to moderator
I am not a Calvinist. I make decisions regarding where I want to go on vacation, what we will fix for dinner, how I am going to spend my money, what I am going to wear today and a multitude of other decisions I make every day. I did not make a ‘decision’ regarding my faith. That was a gift given to me as a result of God’s Word working in me. I can take no credit for my faith. I am called by the Gospel, enlighted with His gifts, and sanctified and kept in the faith by the Holy Spirit. My faith does not depend on me and is not about me–it is about what Christ has done for me.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Andree, you have a gift of being able to see and express things in such a clear, eye-opening way.
Until I came to America I had never heard of the ‘dangerous’ Arminians. (As a side note, are Armenians typically also Arminians, or is that just coincidental?)
Since coming here I’ve met a number of Calvinists who are otherwise nice people but hate anyone in anyway associated with Arminianism, especially all Baptists).
My friend just got excommunicated in abstentia from her family’s church because she believes that people can choose to ignore or obey God. They say she is a heretic, and is going to hell if she doesn’t repent. This friend of mine just happens to read her Bible many hours everyday and has memorised many books in it.
Maybe next time I see these people, I shall sing “I have decided to Follow Jesus” and see if they pelt me with tomatoes…
Report comment to moderator
Mark Roth – sounds like one of Santa’s reindeer.
Report comment to moderator
#7
If she is a heretic, can she repent? I mean from a Calvinist’s way of thinking?:)
Report comment to moderator
Arminians, Calvinists — in the end it’s all just our finite ideas about who God is and therefore flawed. I have about 5 or 6 things in the Christian faith I’d lay down my life for — things like the diety of Christ, Authority of Scripture, Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross, reality of the resurrection — basic things like that. Other things are not worth getting my panties in a bunch over. I just don’t think we have the full picture on “free will.” And I think I maintain a high view of who God is and his sovereignty.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly,
Since this topic mentions calvinism/arminianism, we can continue the discussion here without derailing the other thread.
I am well awared of the history of the 5 points of calvinism. They were a response to what amounts to the 5 points of Arminianism.
Which point or points do you not accept? If you are like most it’s probably “limited atonement” or “particular redemption” as it is also called.
That just happens to be the easiest point of all to prove. Do you believe anyone is in hell today? If so, you believe the atonement is limited. If not you are a universalist.
So the question is not whether it’s limited, it’s who limits it? I say God, for if Jesus died for every single person and not just for his elect, then God requires double payments for the sins of the people who are in hell.
Would God really be so unjust as to require certain sinners to pay for their sins if Jesus has already paid for them? No, he would not.
Report comment to moderator
“I just don’t think we have a full picture on free will.”
Who’s we? Speak for yourself man.
Report comment to moderator
Concerned Citizen,
I’m sorry, but your argument holds as little water as a sieve.
Honestly.
But, as for the rest, I loved Andree’s article. It is much how I believe.
And, any Christian who says another is not a Christian due to their beliefs on freewill either doesn’t know the Bible, or is willfully ignoring it. We are a Christian when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Period.
Good theology is great, but it is not required and never has been. See the thief on the cross.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
If it is such a weak argument then you’d be able to refute which you could not.
BTW, it’s not my argument. It’s a summary from the classic, irrefutable work on Limited Atonement called the Death of Death in death of Christ by John Owen.
Study it sometime, and then you will actually have something of value to contribute to this debate. Until then you show your ignorance on the topic.
Report comment to moderator
cc: You can’t just carelessly claim that the question of limited atonement has been settled, if over half of the opposing side does not agree. That was rather misguided on your part. That was your biggest point, and TRS was right. It holds no water.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr.
I did not carelessly claim that the question has been settled. I provided a valid argument as to why it has been settled.
You and TRS are the ones making the careless claims that my argument holds no water, because you did offer proof. You just stated it was not a good arugment because you did not like but could not refute it.
Check out the book I referenced sometime and you will see that it covers every argument for limited atonement, and no one to this point has produced a work to refute it in about 350 years.
Again I ask the question, do you believe even one person is in hell? If so then you believe the atonement is limited.
The # of people who disagree proves nothing.
Report comment to moderator
ConcernedCitizen -
TRS didn’t try to refute, she merely expressed the gist of her opinion, therefore you cannot say that she cannot refute you. She chooses not to.
And I’d rather be an ignorant Christian than an ungracious one. The way you replied to TRS – calling a fellow believer ignorant in a public forum – seemed quite ungracious to me.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O,
If someone tells me my argument is wrong, I expect a refutation or there is no point in making that claim. It’s pretty arrogant to do that.
As far as being ungracious, I do not think that it was. To say someone is ignorant of a topic is simply saying they are uninformed and have not study the topic which based on the responses I have received seems quite justified.
Now, will someone who disagrees attempt to refute what i posted earlier insteaed of just saying I am wrong? If I am so clearly misguided, then someone should be able to tell me why? I would like to know if I have missed it.
Report comment to moderator
CC:
I’m not sure I fully understand your argument, but one point that may need clarification is the statement,
“Do you believe anyone is in hell today? If so, you believe the atonement is limited. If not you are a universalist.”
The dichotomy is not between limited atonement and universalism, but rather, limited versus universal atonement. There is a big difference and it is what this thread is all about. People are in Hell because they choose to be there. Chirst offered himself for all; we must choose to accept or reject him. And that is where all believers must step in. Do we portray an appealing picture of Jesus in our own lives or one that would turn off any inquisitor at first glance? Only Jesus saves sinners and opens the door to salvation through his atoning death on the cross, but shouldn’t we point the way?
Report comment to moderator
ConcernedCitizen (and everyone else):
I have the book you referenced and have thumbed through it but have never studied it. But the simplest explanation goes as follows: As a man, Christ could only die for one person. Who to choose… Aha! Choose Adam. Then it is every man for himself making the choice for himself.
Hey, even Ryrie was a four-pointer. Unfortunately I can’t remember his defense of this position but I think it came from Luke.
And if you want to be a strict Calvinist, you have to be a six-pointer and have your children baptized.
But, all that aside, I deny free will (because I define free will as being free from *influence*) and generally consider myself on the Calvinist side of the fence. Those who tend toward the Arminian side should take a look at The Openness of God where to preserve man’s ability to choose, the authors basically take away God’s ability to know the future. That is an outcome few Arminians want to ascribe to their belief. (How could we trust the prophecies in the Bible?)
Andree’s point is a good one. But the other side of the coin is that your theology *does* affect the way you live. And therefore if you have poor theology you will live poorly (spiritually). We need to be open to what God wants to teach us as we read and study and are exposed to other interpretations.
Report comment to moderator
I think a lot of Calvinists do fall over into the error/sin of ‘meaness’ to others.
And although I happen to thnk they have the stronger postion (call me … oh … Calvinist-Lite), they are operating contrary to their own stated beliefs to say that someone is condemned for having a mistaken understanding of soteriology.
One may have a saving faith without fully understanding all of the finer points of theology.
Report comment to moderator
Did I say Ryrie? What was I thinking? Please insert JC Ryle up there!
Report comment to moderator
#19 If you believe he offered himself for all, then why are all not saved? That view limits the atonement more than the view I have espoused. It also means that Christ died in vain for all who are not saved. Calvinism says all that Christ died for will be saved.
The view you espouse says that most people Christ died for will not be saved. That is insulting to the wisdom and power of God. It is a view that says God wants all people everywhere to be saved, but he is not wise enough or powerful enough to accomplish that.
Will God really choose a means that will give him an unexpected end? Adam did that in the Garden. When he ate of the fruit, he intended to be like God, but instead brought death to the entire human race. God, however, will never chose a means that will not accomplish his intended end.
Your view also says that Jesus didn’t actually accomplish anything by his death, other than he died for the possibility for all people to be saved.
Back to my original argument. If any person is in hell, then either their sins were not atoned for or God requires double payment for their sins. It has to be the former, for the latter would be unjust.
Report comment to moderator
If God is sovereign (which, of course, He most certainly is), then in His sovereignty He can choose to give man a choice. Or a partial choice.
CC – This issue has been debated (& argued) ad nauseum on this blog over the years. That may be why TRS & others aren’t interested in taking up your challenge.
What many of us have come to believe is that somehow the truth lies between the 2 extreme views. That may seem contradictory, but God is God. If Jesus can be fully God & fully human at the same time, then our “atonement” can be complicated (or complex & yet so simple) as well.
As for the “ignorant” statement, refusing to engage in a debate is not proof of ignorance of a subject. And let’s face it, we may know what the real definition of “ignorant” is, but it is a “loaded” word these days, with it’s connotation growing closer to “stupid” than what it actually means.
Report comment to moderator
CC: I’ve had a huge debate on this blog before about this issue and in the process, realized my impatience for Calvinist fake arguments. The fact that people are in hell proves… NOTHING. It explains NOTHING. Both calvinism and arminianism recognize the presence of sinners in hell. It’s not a trivial issue for anybody. Maybe except you. You need to provide more than that. If that’s all you have, you have NOTHING.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr,
Being in hell absolutely proves your sins weren’t atoned for. If they were, you would not be there.
Report comment to moderator
Atonement for sin is a two way street. There is the offer, then the acceptance. Being in hell simply proves that some did not accept what was offered freely. Try again.
Report comment to moderator
EFarmer.ny: Freedom from influence is not a necessary ingredient of free will. As a matter of fact, I would like to know where the heck you got that from. Before you believe/disbelieve in free will, it’s important to be accurate as to what it is in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr #28: If you believe your will is free then it must be free from something. What is your will free from?
I know that I do not hold a classical position on this issue, which is why I explained myself.
You don’t have to agree with me.
Report comment to moderator
Adios raised a good question on JoanneB’s post (#9 in response to #7) which everyone tiptoed away from.
Joanne said: My friend just got excommunicated in abstentia from her family’s church because she believes that people can choose to ignore or obey God. They say she is a heretic, and is going to hell if she doesn’t repent.
But if they don’t believe she has the choice to ignore or obey God, how can she repent? The choice is not hers, is it?
Talk about a logical contradiction!
Report comment to moderator
trying to stuff God in a box
can’t let Him speak for Himself
true religion is visiting the widow, orphans and fatherless IN their distress
Report comment to moderator
ConcernedCitizen at #23: If you believe he offered himself for all, then why are all not saved? That view limits the atonement more than the view I have espoused. It also means that Christ died in vain for all who are not saved. Calvinism says all that Christ died for will be saved.
The view you espouse says that most people Christ died for will not be saved. That is insulting to the wisdom and power of God. It is a view that says God wants all people everywhere to be saved, but he is not wise enough or powerful enough to accomplish that.
And you believe God is not loving enough to desire the salvation of all.
You believe in a God who creates human beings fully intending to condemn them to eternal torture.
You are welcome to have that monstrosity of a God.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Hell was never intended to demonstrate God’s love. The cross was intended to do that. “God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.”
Paul anticipated similar reactions in Romans 9. I firmly believe God chooses who will be in heaven, but I am not sure yet what the Bible teaches on double predistination. I have not studied that issue thoroughly yet.
Also, the charge that God is somehow less loving for not saving everyone does not let him off the hook on your view either. While you believe it’s man’s choice, God still knew ahead of time that they would reject him, so why would he create them knowing they would end up in hell? Why not just create the ones you know will say accept you?
Report comment to moderator
Fynne Jr,
# 27, “there is the offer, then the acceptance”
yes jesus offered his body as a sacrifice for sins and the Father accepted it.
Report comment to moderator
#7, I am skeptical that anyone would condemn someone to hell over this issue, but if it did happen that is wrong. I guess there could be some wackos out there somewhere.
This is a non essential issue that is worth debating and I think is important but not one that requires disfellowshiping over.
Report comment to moderator
I am copying and pasting the following from here.
He died for ALL (1 Tim. 2:6).
He died for ALL MEN (Rom. 5:18; 1 Tim. 4:10).
He died for US ALL, for ALL OF US (Isa. 53:6).
He died for the UNGODLY (Rom. 5:6).
He died for CHRIST-DENIERS (2 Peter 2:1).
He died for SINNERS (Rom. 5:8).
He died for EVERY MAN (Heb. 2:9).
He died for MANY (Matthew 20:28).
He died for the WORLD (John 6:33,51; John 1:29 and John 3:16).
He died for the WHOLE WORLD (1 John 2:2).
He died for the WHOLE NATION of Israel (John 11:50-51).
He died for the CHURCH (Eph. 5:25).
He died for His SHEEP (John 10:11).
He died for ME (Gal. 2:20).
Here is another good article. It lays out seven arguments for limited atonement and refutes them. I’ll quote a bit of it:
A sixth proof for the limited atonement arises from the absurdities involved in the unlimited position Limited redemptionists would have unlimited redemptionists say that God’s positive will, His divine purpose, and not merely His revealed will can be frustrated by man. According to this unlimited position, it is even possible that not a single sinner could be saved. One would even have to believe that Christ laid down His life for the salvation of those who have already died in their sins and were consigned to outer darkness.
Shedd stated: “It is not rational to suppose that God the Father merely determined that God the Son should die for the sin of the world, leaving it wholly, or in part, to the sinful world to determine all the result of this stupendous transaction; leaving it wholly, or in part, to the sinful world to decide how many or how few this death should actually save. Neither is it rational to suppose that the Son of God would lay down His life upon such a peradventure; for it might be that not a single human soul would trust in His sacrifice, and in this case He would have died in vain.”
A final argument, the one carrying the most weight, is that various verses of Scripture appear to teach a limited atonement.
I should note that I’m Arminian, but I basically agree with that article although it’s written from a moderate Calvinist perspective. One more disclaimer: That site advocates KJV-Onlyism, which I disagree with strongly.
More in my next post…
Report comment to moderator
Here’s more from that same site. I thought about not posting it because of the KJV-Onlyism, but decided not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.
Concerning the limited redemptionists’ strongest argument, that of the Scriptures, where it speaks of Christ dying for His sheep, His church, His people, for many, it may be stated that Scripture does not always include all the truth involved in the theme presented at a given place. These verses state that Christ died for a certain group, but they do not state that He died for them exclusive of all others. Just the statement that Christ died for the elect does not prove the point of the limited redemptionists. According to this logic of the limited redemptionists John 11:51 and Isaiah 53:8 teach that Christ died only for Israel, and Galatians 2:20 would prove that Christ died only for the Apostle Paul, for Paul declares, “who loved me, and gave himself for me.” As well, one might say that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter, for Luke 22:32 says, “I have prayed for thee.”
From this site
“If Christ died for everyone, then everyone will be saved.” Let’s think about the logic of this statement. This would be like saying, “If medicine is available for everyone, then everyone must be healed.” This is obviously false. The medicine, though available, will not do any good unless it is taken. “There is more than enough cool, refreshing water for every thirsty person in the village.” Does this mean that every person in the village will have his thirst quenched? Only if every person drinks! We need to make a difference between redemption accomplished and redemption applied.
More:
People are not lost because Christ did not die for them. They are lost because they have rejected the Christ who died for them.
I hope it’s OK that I pasted this stuff. It’s not like I quoted the whole article; I provided a link and pasted the parts that I wanted to highlight.
I agree with Concerned Citizen in #35: “This is a non essential issue that is worth debating and I think is important but not one that requires disfellowshiping over.”
Report comment to moderator
ConcernedCitizen at #33: Also, the charge that God is somehow less loving for not saving everyone does not let him off the hook on your view either. While you believe it’s man’s choice, God still knew ahead of time that they would reject him, so why would he create them knowing they would end up in hell? Why not just create the ones you know will say accept you?
That’s not my position either. As it happens, I’m a universalist.
But if I were to be a Christian exclusivist, a God who makes salvation available to all and leaves it to each of us to choose makes far more sense than one who does not even open the door for most. That version of God is evil.
Report comment to moderator
Like Fyne Jr. was saying: Forgiveness is offered to all as a free gift, but each person has to make the choice to receive/reject that gift.
Report comment to moderator
#37 Matt Y (and others).
“People are not lost because Christ did not die for them.”
Who said people are lost because Christ did not die for them?
“They are lost because they have rejected the Christ who died for them.”
People are lost because they are born sinners, not because they reject Christ. They remain lost until they repent and believe.
Report comment to moderator
Isaiah makes it clear that the “punishment that brought us peace was upon him”
We only have 3 options: Either Christ took the punishment for all the sins of all men, all of the sins of some men, or some of the sins of all men.
If it is the 3rd option then no man will be saved. No one holds that view here.
If it is the first option, which many on here have argued, then why are all men not free from the punishment of their sin?
You will say, “because of their unbelief, they will not believe”.
But this unbelief, is it sin or not? If it is not, why should they be punished for it?
If it is sin, then Christ either underwent the punishment for it also, or he did not.
If he did undergo the punishment, why should the sin of unbelief hinder them more than other sins from partaking in the fruits of the death of Christ?
If he did not, then he did not die for all sins.
Report comment to moderator
CC: “yes jesus offered his body as a sacrifice for sins and the Father accepted it.”
Don’t be an idiot. That was obviously not what I was saying. Unless you are trying to make the point that salvation hasn’t been offered to man (for him to accept), you only have the option of thinking about that point, instead of rushing to a response, especially an incoherent one like the one above.
“I firmly believe God chooses who will be in heaven, but I am not sure yet what the Bible teaches on double predistination. I have not studied that issue thoroughly yet.”
Gee, ya think that could be a reason for all the confusion?
“Also, the charge that God is somehow less loving for not saving everyone does not let him off the hook on your view either. While you believe it’s man’s choice, God still knew ahead of time that they would reject him, so why would he create them knowing they would end up in hell? Why not just create the ones you know will say accept you?”
So basically, you are motivated in your calvinism by your fear of the implication that God might not see the future? This is not to downplay the power of God, but what does that mean to “see the future?” As per your last question, God created man and gave him free will, period. In other words, he made man in his own image. With the ability to choose. A being programmed to make do only one thing is not in the image of God. It is simply, not man. It’s that simple.
Report comment to moderator
One more flaw in your logic is that you are confused as to what Christ died for: “If he did not, then he did not die for all sins.”
Not only did Christ not die for all sins, he did not die for any sins. He died for sinners. By confusing that, you confuse the concept of salvation all together, and hence the calvinism.
Report comment to moderator
efarmer.ny: Your will is free from the contraints and the coercion of an outside source.
Now I’m not gonna have to explain to you why those two are not synonymous with influence am I? The term has a definition. Stick to it.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne jr,
on the atonement I was not rushing to a response. In regards to the atonement, Jesus offered his body to God who accepted it as payment for sin.
The offer/accdeptance of eternal life is a matter of the will not atonement.
“So basically, you are motivated in your calvinism by your fear of the implication that God might not see the future”
No I am motivated in my calvinism by the glory of God and the teaching of the Bible. Yes God is omniscient, he knows all things actual and possible including the future.
“he did not die for any sins, he died for sinners”
This is too easy to refute.
1) Isaiah 53:6 says ” the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. ”
2) 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.
“God created man and gave him free will, period…with the ability to choose.”
We have a will, but it is not free. It is in bondage to sin.
The Bible says men love darkness rather than light. Left up to our own we will choose sin over God every time. God has to change what we prefer in order for us to repent and believe in him.
Just because God requires men to repent, does not mean they have that ability apart from him. Faith is a gift from God. Eph 2:8&9
Report comment to moderator
Just because God requires men to repent, does not mean they have that ability apart from him. Faith is a gift from God. Eph 2:8&9
True. John 6:44-”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
But men also have the choice to reject the gift of grace and forgiveness that is offered. Salvation is by choice, not involuntary or forced.
Report comment to moderator
I would agree that those who come to Christ come willingly and it is God who makes them willing. That is the irristible grace of calvinism.
Report comment to moderator
From 44:
efarmer.ny: Your will is free from the contraints and the coercion of an outside source.
Now I’m not gonna have to explain to you why those two are not synonymous with influence am I? The term has a definition. Stick to it.
I’m glad that you know the line where for you a growing influence crosses into constraint. I’m not that smart. As concernedcitizen said in 45, if your soul is in bondage to sin is that influence or coercion? If your answer is different than mine, I’m OK with that.
ConcernedCitizen #41
We only have 3 options: Either Christ took the punishment for all the sins of all men, all of the sins of some men, or some of the sins of all men.
Is it a valid argument to say that the fourth option would be that Christ died for all the sins of all men EXCEPT for the unforgivable sin, which is basically rejecting God’s offer of salvation?
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y at #46: True. John 6:44-”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Right, and further: “if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to Myself. (John 12:32).
One of the many clearly universalist texts in the NT.
Report comment to moderator
Efarmer,
so you choose to say that Jesus did not die for all sins.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
I appreciate you offering a verse, but this does not mean every single person will be saved.
It is referring to some gentiles not just some jews that will be saved.
Many jews believed salvation was only for them, and was a result of their birth as jews. Jesus correct this incorrect belief.
Efarmer,
the unforgivable sin is not unbelief. it’s blasphemey against the holy spirit. I don’t want to derail the thread into this, i just wanted to point out how Jesus used the phrase.
Report comment to moderator
CC: In and of itself it doesn’t, but when read in the context of all the other universalist texts in the Bible, it most certainly does.
Universalism is also the only position that makes logical sense.
Calvinism: God could save everyone but doesn’t want to. God’s love is limited.
Armininism: God wants to save everyone but cannot. God’s power is limited.
Universalism: God wants to save everyone, and can find a way to do so (with no end to each person’s opportunity to repent). No limits on God.
Universalism was also the majority position of the church until the time of Constantine in the Fifth Century AD. It is exclusivism that is the real heresy.
Report comment to moderator
steve g
“universalism was also the majority position of the church until the 5th century.”
Please cite some sources on that.
Jesus said the road to destruction is broad and many find it. the road to life is narrow and few find it.
How do you fit that in with universalism?
Report comment to moderator
CC: “on the atonement I was not rushing to a response. In regards to the atonement, Jesus offered his body to God who accepted it as payment for sin.”
Which again, is a dumb comment because it pretends to be a response to my previous statement without actually addressing it. All you just did was repeat yourself. My point was that in atonement, something is offered TO MAN. Unless you disagree with that, you have no other point. The fact that Christ offered himself to God does not add to, or withdraw from my point. And my point, is what you must address. Not some random crap that had no relation to my comment.
Report comment to moderator
CC: “No I am motivated in my calvinism by the glory of God and the teaching of the Bible.”
I’m motivated by my arminianism by the glory of God and teachings of the Bible. There I guess it’s settled.
“Yes God is omniscient, he knows all things actual and possible including the future.”
I asked you what it means to “see the future.” I am not doubting the lack of limit to God’s power, just your comprehension of certain statements you (and people in general) make.
My other point may be “too easy to refute, but you sure didn’t do so.
“Isaiah 53:6 says ” the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.”
But then there is the why. Did he primarily come to eliminate sins, or did he come to rescue sinners?
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.”
How is this a refutation of my point? It seems more like a clarification of my point. That Christ came and died for the world (hmmm… notice the word “whole” in front of the word “world” wonder what that does to Calvinism’s limited atonement shtick), and not for sin itself.
“We have a will, but it is not free. It is in bondage to sin.”
This doesn’t even make any sense. It is true that man cannot rescue himself. However, when rescue comes, man can accept it, or refuse it. That alone, constitutes free will, and both choices have been made by different people.
“The Bible says men love darkness rather than light. Left up to our own we will choose sin over God every time. God has to change what we prefer in order for us to repent and believe in him.”
Yes. But even after all that is changed, we will have to step through that door. God will open every eye to see the extension of his glory to us. But he will not force any man to choose it. Try again.
“Just because God requires men to repent, does not mean they have that ability apart from him. Faith is a gift from God.”
So? Yes faith is a gift from God. We all know and agree with that. What’s your point? That God programs repentance into men?
Try again.
Report comment to moderator
Church Fathers on Hell
The above church fathers believed in eternal punishment. It does appear that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus were universalists; but all of them were part of the Catechical School of Alexandria that also diverged in other areas such as amillenialism, an allegorical interpretation of much of the Bible, and transmigration of the soul, a philosophy of reincarnation. This was largely because they incorporated pagan Greek philosophy from Plato into Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
efarmer.ny: “I’m glad that you know the line where for you a growing influence crosses into constraint. I’m not that smart.”
That is really really sad, but not new. Right from Eden. Adam blaming the wife (and God). The wife blaming the snake. Free will is the beginning of personal responsibility. A lack of it, and… well, you know the rest. Like I said before, it has a definition. Agree or disagree with it. Just don’t feed me this garbage about how you have your own (conveniently) custom made definition of free will. Nobody cares, since it applies to nobody in the real world.
“As concernedcitizen said in 45, if your soul is in bondage to sin is that influence or coercion? If your answer is different than mine, I’m OK with that.”
See my response to CC above.
Report comment to moderator
ConcernedCitizen said:
so you choose to say that Jesus did not die for all sins.
the unforgivable sin is not unbelief. it’s blasphemey against the holy spirit. I don’t want to derail the thread into this, i just wanted to point out how Jesus used the phrase.
In trying to follow your logic, if Christ died for all sins of the elect, and the unforgivable sin is not pardonable, then the elect did not commit the unforgivable sin. Since they have all put their faith in God it could not be that sin, so that seemed to be a good interpretation of Christ’s phrase. But that is working backwards and I agree that it is not worth debating in this thread.
Fyne, Jr. said:
Free will is the beginning of personal responsibility.
I never said that people don’t choose and aren’t responsible for their actions. I know that you call this free will. I am told that I live in a ‘free’ country but there are freedoms that I do not have. The answer to the question about whether or not I am truly ‘free’ in my country is analagous to me regarding free will. So I opt to say it is not free. To me this falls into the scope of Andree’s original post. I’m sorry you see it differently and I’ll drop the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
CC at #53: Jesus said the road to destruction is broad and many find it. the road to life is narrow and few find it.
How do you fit that in with universalism?
Destruction is not necessarily the same thing as eternal damnation.
However, I’m not interested in defending this in detail in blog comments. It’s much too complex. I will recommend the books The Evangelical Universalist, by Gregory MacDonald, and The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott, and leave it at that.
If you’re not interested enough to read a book where the argument is made slowly, carefully and thoroughly, then there’s no point in my trying to convince you 100 words at a time.
Report comment to moderator
efarmer.ny: God’s decisions are made out of influence. He makes it clear what kind of actions can be expected from him, depending on the situation. That’s 1. Then there’s the fact (which I can’t understand this pathetic attempt by you to dance around) that free will an absolute definition. It’s not an opinion, it’s fact. Stop talking and look it up.
Report comment to moderator
It’s amazing how someone like Andree Sue can write a lovely essay, such as above, resulting in the posters going off on a totally irrelevant path! The article has nothing to do with Armenianism vs Calvinism, but on man’s limited view of God and our gradual perception of of his Truth.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr.
OK, I looked it up:
From The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink, page 95. Empasis points are by A. W. Pink:
What is 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 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 that influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be soverereign, 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 a 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 the absolute “freedom” of it.
I say, Fyne Jr., that if you and I get the opportunity to meet in heaven that we take a walk down the golden street to the river, take a bite of whichever fruit is in season, and have a good chuckle over how neither of us had a complete understanding of these things while on earth.
Report comment to moderator
# 61…the first two sentences mention Arminians.
Report comment to moderator
Actually when it comes to truth, everything comes down to Arminianism (Humanism) and Calvinism (Christianity) – is man in charge or is God in charge?
Report comment to moderator
I believe, St. Augustine defined free will as the ability to chose between right and wrong, but not the ability to chose the things of heaven. Interesting way to put it.
Calvinism doesnt let man off the hook. There is a balance of God’s divine sovereignty and providence, and yet man’s responsibility at the same time. A balance we will probably never understand fully.
Report comment to moderator
True, Thorn. Man is free to choose any poison he wants, but not his cure.
Report comment to moderator