Question for Calvinists

[sandusky]

cazayoux:

This ignores the fact that not all scripture is written by apostles and prophets.

This ignores other writings that were considered for inclusion in the canon.

not all NT writers performed miracles… that we know of

not all NT writers gave prophecies… that we know of

now THAT is subjective. hardly a proof point.

again … not all writings are from apostles.

Not all NT writings state who the writer was.

What criteria were used by the early church to determine what was, and was not scripture?

cazayoux:

It’s not an assumed fact, it is actually a fact.

All those not in communion with Rome consider it an assumed fact.

cazayoux:

The church existed before the NT.

Not for very long before, and so what? Do you think the church without the gospel and epistles taught something different than what was written in the gospel and epistles?

cazayoux:

The witness that protected the truth before anything was written, protected the truth after it was written, and protected the truth to be able to state which writings were of the truth.

That would be God.

cazayoux:

The church is not merely a witness to the scriptures, it is a witness to TRUTH, even before the scriptures existed, and as the pillar and bulwark of the truth has the God-given guidance and authority to teach that

ISTM that you’re making a distinction between scripture, and truth.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;4315705:

Roman Catholicism allows breathing room for mutually exclusive private interpertations on many issues. You don’t have to answer yes or no on all the issues.

I wasn’t aware that you were Catholic.

What does Calvinism allow, as a point of reference, regarding God’s sovereignty?

 

[Reformed]

Reformed;4315846:

I wasn’t aware that you were Catholic.

What does Calvinism allow, as a point of reference, regarding God’s sovereignty?

I think Calvinists would say that God is completely sovereign in all things. If God is not sovereign in all things, how can we have faith that He has the ability to fulfill all of His promises? If one small atom goes against the will of God, then God’s will may not be done.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Why is it more difficult for rich man to enter heaven?

Nice question – actually one of the most misunderstood points Jesus ever made. Look at Christ’s entire discourse:

*When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” (Luke 18:22-27)*

The fact is it’s always impossible for man to save himself, much less a rich man mired in concerns over retaining and enhancing his own wealth. Those who heard the words of Jesus wondered who can be saved under this dichotomy? Jesus basically said no one can save themselves, only God can save and He will save anyone who believes.

Indeed not only that but God has preserved an elect for Himself from before the founding of the world. There are none other who will or can be saved. God is the initiator and perfecter of our faith.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Nice question – actually one of the most misunderstood points Jesus ever made. Look at Christ’s entire discourse:

*When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”* (Luke 18:22-27)

The fact is it’s always impossible for man to save himself, much less a rich man mired in concerns over retaining and enhancing his own wealth. Those who heard the words of Jesus wondered who can be saved under this dichotomy? Jesus basically said no one can save themselves, only God can save and He will save anyone who believes.

Indeed not only that but God has preserved an elect for Himself from before the founding of the world. There are none other who will or can be saved. God is the initiator and perfecter of our faith.

I agree that without God we cannot be saved.

However, I think you are missing a key word. With God all things are “possible.”

This doesn’t change the meaning of the earlier passage. It actually is more difficult for rich man to get to heaven because he is less likely to feel the need to seek God’s will.

I believe this passage lays to rest any claims of unconditional election.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I agree that without God we cannot be saved.

However, I think you are missing a key word. With God all things are “possible.”

This doesn’t change the meaning of the earlier passage. It actually is more difficult for rich man to get to heaven because he is less likely to feel the need to seek God’s will.

I believe this passage lays to rest any claims of unconditional election.

Well I simply disagree with that notion. I certainly do agree that all things are possible with God – however, you’re ignoring dozens of passages irrefutably enumerating unconditional election. The only valid question might be: will all of the elect be saved?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well I simply disagree with that notion. I certainly do agree that all things are possible with God – however, you’re ignoring dozens of passages irrefutably enumerating unconditional election. The only valid question might be: will all of the elect be saved?

Who is ignoring passages?

Do you deny that God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?

Are you one of those who claims God just wants at least one of every color and nationality or some other major revisionism that Calvinists cling to?

Do you deny that just as death came from one man to all, so also justification and life come from one man to all?

Do you deny that Jesus tells us that even if we don’t know we are serving him it will help attain salvation for us?

Why do you ignore the clear words of the bible and substitute your own dogma?

37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

He then will turn to the self righteous Calvinists and say:

45, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

[cazayoux]

What criteria were used by the early church to determine what was, and was not scripture?

There was no ONE way, as evidenced by so much discussion at the council in 382. To note, when the decision was made at that council (led by the Holy Spirit), nobody questioned it. Sounds authoritative to me. Well, nobody questioned it until Luther.

Not for very long before, and so what? Do you think the church without the gospel and epistles taught something different than what was written in the gospel and epistles?

I didn’t say the church was without the gospel. Quite the contrary. What they didn’t have was the gospel written down. Jesus didn’t tell them “go forth and pass out the scripture”, he said “preach”. The point is that it is the church that Jesus gave authority to. It was THIS authority that recognized what was and was not God-breathed scripture.

ISTM that you’re making a distinction between scripture, and truth.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.
Of COURSE, scripture is truth.
You act as if there was no truth that existed in Jesus’ church until the scripture was written, and that’s simply not true.

The fine point here is WHY do you believe scripture is truth.
The bottom line is that you believe the NT to be truth because the authoritative church (authority from Jesus) that predates the NT, infallibly recognized it.
You believe the NT writings (and no other christian writings) are the inerrant, God-breathed truth because the Catholic Church in 382 tells you so.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Well, then the Catholic Church is nuts. Because the Catholic Church says explicitly in Dei Verbum both that Scripture is the Word of God (though not the only form in which the Church has access to the Word of God) and that the Church is the servant of the Word of God. Which agrees with Hodge’s point.

No argument that the scripture is the Word of God and that the church is not equal to the Word of God. That’s what scripture says, that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. It was the protector of truth before the scriptures were written.

Maybe I should have been clearer. I don’t mean to say that the church is on par with the scripture. We cannot separate the scripture from the church, because it is through the church that you and I agree as to what scripture is. You should thank the Catholic Church for protecting scripture since those earliest times so it could arrive intact in the 15th century to your beloved reformers.

It’s worth saying that the Word of God is not only the written word.
We cannot ignore that God’s hand is in all of this.
It’s God’s word that was preached and written.
It’s Jesus that founded a church to protect the truth.
It’s the Holy Spirit that is with the church.
The church is not from man, it is from God.
The authority the church has is not of it’s own, it’s from God.
The teaching from the church are led by the Holy Spirit.

Again, irrelevant. Once any book is inspired and recognized by the Church as such, that book, as part of Scripture, has authority over the Church.

Not irrelevant. I agree that the Word of God is higher than the Church. And it is the Church that Jesus gave us to protect that truth. How does it protect the truth. This doesn’t mean putting the bible in a lockbox. It means teaching the Word of God.

Being separated from that protector of truth has had it’s consequences. In protestantism, every individual considers themselves the protector of truth and there is so much disagreement among them as to what the Word of God in scripture really means in this place or that.

Did God really only leave us His written Word so we could flounder around individually trying to figure everything out for ourselves?
NO. He have us a church to guide us. He gave the church the Holy Spirit to guide it.
Our learning today is built on 2000 years of living and understanding scripture. Why ignore the church that has protected the truth and has had the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand the gospel for so many years.

The claim that the Church is infallible in its teaching is a claim that must be discussed on its own merits (and very carefully defined–the claim in official Catholic teaching is a fairly narrow one, but from your rhetoric one would not know that).

The claim that the Catholic Church is the infallible teacher of the gospel IS a very narrow one. In no way do I claim (by my rhetoric) otherwise. It is in this narrow definition that the church infallibly recognized which writings were and were not inspired.

It does not automatically follow from the fact that we know Scripture by the Church’s testimony. That is Hodge’s point. And I think it’s a valid one, although his earlier arguments (attempting to make this point unnecessary except as backup) are not.

Edwin

Hodge believes that scripture is inspired, and completely ignores the history that brought him that belief.
This is what you are doing as well.

The great news is that we AGREE that the scripture is inerrant and the actual Word of God!!! Yeah !!!
However, there is no litmus test to make that determination of what is and is not scripture other than the church recognized it and authoritatively told us so.

michel

 

[Contarini]

No argument that the scripture is the Word of God and that the church is not equal to the Word of God. That’s what scripture says, that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. It was the protector of truth before the scriptures were written.

Maybe I should have been clearer. I don’t mean to say that the church is on par with the scripture. We cannot separate the scripture from the church, because it is through the church that you and I agree as to what scripture is. You should thank the Catholic Church for protecting scripture since those earliest times so it could arrive intact in the 15th century to your beloved reformers.

Why on earth do you think they are any more beloved to me than any other Christians? Don’t you know that it’s rude to make completely random assumptions about what people think?

You are flailing at the air, arguing with some imaginary “Protestant” position in your head which does not correspond to what I believe. The point I’m making–and the one point on which I agree with Hodge–is that the fact that the Church protects and testifies to the Word of God embodied in Scripture does not mean that the Church has authority over Scripture, and it does not necessarily mean that the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is infallible.

One can quite reasonably ask Protestants why they are so sure that the Church was right in, for instance, canonizing 2 Peter (even though this was disputed in the early Church, and modern scholars generally conclude that it was not written by Peter and may date as late as the early 2nd century). One can certainly argue that if we give that much credence to the Church in this regard, we should give just as much credence to the Church’s decisions about Scriptural interpretation.

However, it does not follow from this that the Church is infallible. Nor does it follow that the Church of the 8th or 12th or 15th centuries had as much authority as the Church of the first few centuries. The early Church was (as Catholics are quick to argue in other contexts, where this argument helps instead of hurting them) closer to the Apostles in time than we are, and it was arguably relatively more unified than it is today, or even than it was after the Christological schisms and the East-West schism. You therefore cannot leap from the conclusion that the early Church’s decisions about the canon can be trusted to the conclusion that, say, the Council of Trent was infallible in its rejection of the teachings of the Protestant Reformers. (Note that I am certainly not claiming that the Reformers were infallible either, or even generally right. If forced to choose, I’d go with Trent over against either Lutheran or Reformed confessionalism. But as an Anglican I’m not forced to choose.)

Furthermore, there is a blatant contradiction between saying that Protestants trust the early Church with regard to the NT canon (and thus ought to trust everything the later Catholic Church says) and rebuking them for *not *trusting the early Church with regard to the OT canon.

It’s worth saying that the Word of God is not only the written word.

That is true, but not relevant here, unless you are using this fact to undermine the very distinctions that Dei Verbum clearly makes.

Not irrelevant. I agree that the Word of God is higher than the Church. And it is the Church that Jesus gave us to protect that truth. How does it protect the truth. This doesn’t mean putting the bible in a lockbox. It means teaching the Word of God.

Indeed. No dispute there.

Our learning today is built on 2000 years of living and understanding scripture. Why ignore the church that has protected the truth and has had the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand the gospel for so many years.

Why indeed? But also, why assume that the Roman Communion as it exists today is exactly the same as the Catholic Church of the first few centuries, especially when there are so many ways in which it clearly isn’t? Protestants don’t think that we ignore the historic Church. We just don’t think that your Communion, and it alone, is that Church. That has to be argued in its own right, not simply assumed.

I think you guys have a very, very strong argument with regard to the canon. But you consistently ruin it by overstatement. Stick to specifics. Ask sola scriptura Protestants why they accept 2 Peter (or Esther) as canonical. I for one have never gotten a satisfactory reply. Don’t make big sweeping arguments that have a thousand holes in them.

Hodge believes that scripture is inspired, and completely ignores the history that brought him that belief.

No, he doesn’t. In the earlier arguments, which you refuted (and on which I basically agree with you), he tried to explain the significance of that history away. This particular argument doesn’t ignore the history. It points out, rightly, that the history does not prove as much as you want it to prove.

However, there is no litmus test to make that determination of what is and is not scripture other than the church recognized it and authoritatively told us so.

michel

I wouldn’t say that there is “no” other test. The other criteria mentioned by Hodge are legitimate, but insufficient. I agree that for the entire NT canon to be accepted with reasonable certainty (infallibility is not the issue here), you have to have a high degree of confidence in the consensus of the early Church. And Catholics can quite rightly press the issue of why this confidence should not apply to other early Christian beliefs rejected by many Protestants, and why Protestants think that there is no unified Church in later centuries deserving of similar confidence.

Again, you have a good argument. Just try not to ruin it by making claims that don’t hold up.

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

cazayoux:

There was no ONE way, as evidenced by so much discussion at the council in 382. To note, when the decision was made at that council (led by the Holy Spirit), nobody questioned it. Sounds authoritative to me. Well, nobody questioned it until Luther.

They affirmed Athanasius’ NT canon.

cazayoux:

I didn’t say the church was without the gospel. Quite the contrary. What they didn’t have was the gospel written down. Jesus didn’t tell them “go forth and pass out the scripture”, he said “preach”. The point is that it is the church that Jesus gave authority to. It was THIS authority that recognized what was and was not God-breathed scripture.

I agree, the church recognized what was and what was not scripture.

cazayoux:

You believe the NT writings (and no other christian writings) are the inerrant, God-breathed truth because the Catholic Church in 382 tells you so.

They affirmed Athanasius’ NT canon.

cazayoux:

Being separated from that protector of truth has had it’s consequences. In protestantism, every individual considers themselves the protector of truth and there is so much disagreement among them as to what the Word of God in scripture really means in this place or that.

If disagreement disqualifies a church from being “the true church,” then the RCC is disqualified as well.

 

[cazayoux]

You are flailing at the air, arguing with some imaginary “Protestant” position in your head which does not correspond to what I believe.

You are absolutely right. My apologies.
After you spend so much time here, keeping everyone’s position straight has become befuddling to me.
I didn’t mean to pigeonhole you.
Please forgive.

The point I’m making–and the one point on which I agree with Hodge–is that the fact that the Church protects and testifies to the Word of God embodied in Scripture does not mean that the Church has authority over Scripture, and it does not necessarily mean that the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is infallible.

I do not mean to say the reason the church claims infallibility in teaching or claims authority *is because of *the canonization of scripture.
The canonization of scripture is only a proof that that infallibility and authority was recognized.
As you stated earlier, the infallibility of the church’s teachings are another discussion that should be vetted.

One can certainly argue that if we give that much credence to the Church in this regard, we should give just as much credence to the Church’s decisions about Scriptural interpretation.

Great point.

However, it does not follow from this that the Church is infallible.

To be clear, the Church as a whole does not claim infallibility. Even the pope is not considered infallible or impeccable. Only the pope’s *teachings *on faith and morals when speaking to the entire church from the chair of Peter is considered infallible teachings.

Nor does it follow that the Church of the 8th or 12th or 15th centuries had as much authority as the Church of the first few centuries.

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
He said he would be with us always, until the close of the age.
There is no timestamp of 700, 1100, or 1400 years for this church.

Furthermore, there is a blatant contradiction between saying that Protestants trust the early Church with regard to the NT canon (and thus ought to trust everything the later Catholic Church says) and rebuking them for *not *trusting the early Church with regard to the OT canon.

But this is exactly the case.
Protestants (hopefully not generalizing too much here), trust that early church’s authority for the NT, but do not for the OT. It’s an inconsistency.

… why assume that the Roman Communion as it exists today is exactly the same as the Catholic Church of the first few centuries, especially when there are so many ways in which it clearly isn’t?

How can anyone say ‘exactly’? Just look at doctrine that developed in the fourth century, such as the trinity. It’s not that the trinity wasn’t true before 325, but the teaching was clarified then so all could better understand.
I doubt you would say the church at the beginning of the 4th century was exactly the same as the church at the end of the 4th century, but you would agree that it was the same church.
So of course we’ve come to better understandings of the faith over these 2000 years. This doesn’t change the authority of the church to teach the gospel and help us to understand scripture. Jesus gave authority to the church to protect truth. This doesn’t expire.

Protestants don’t think that we ignore the historic Church. We just don’t think that your Communion, and it alone, is that Church. That has to be argued in its own right, not simply assumed.

In my experience here, many protestant seem to think of two phases of Christian history: (1) the first century as seen through scripture alone, and (2) The 15th century view of the Catholic Church that saw many abuses that needed to be (and were) addressed.
They see Luther as a reformer, but how do you reform a church by leaving it. Talk about overstepping.
So you are right that we should look at the church (and evaluate it authority), from the time Christ founded the church and every century until today.
As I stated earlier, the promise of Jesus did not come with a timestamp.
So I need your guidance. What event(s) is (are) key for you to state that the Catholic Church of today is not the same church as the Catholic Church from say the 8th century is not the same Church as in the 4th century is not the same Church as in the 1st century.

Don’t make big sweeping arguments that have a thousand holes in them.

Of course, it is not my intention to do so.
I’m an amateur here, doing my best and hoping to learn from the discussions.
You, in particular, have helped me. Thank you.

I agree that for the entire NT canon to be accepted with reasonable certainty (infallibility is not the issue here), you have to have a high degree of confidence in the consensus of the early Church.

But ‘consensus’ was not the authority.
In fact, the whole reason for the discussion at the council is because there was no consensus.
The confidence was not in the consensus, but in the authority of the church that set the canon.
Once the canon was established, the arguments stopped.
Then we have a consensus.

good exchange.

michel

 

[sola_scriptura]

Who is ignoring passages?

Do you deny that God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?

Are you one of those who claims God just wants at least one of every color and nationality or some other major revisionism that Calvinists cling to?

Do you deny that just as death came from one man to all, so also justification and life come from one man to all?

Do you deny that Jesus tells us that even if we don’t know we are serving him it will help attain salvation for us?

I eliminated some of your more objectionable statements in some hope we might discuss this issue in a civil and scholarly matter (that will be up to you).

First, you cite 1 Tim. 2:3-4

**“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” **

Another good verse Universalists often cite is 2 Peter 3:9.

It should be noted that John Calvin never took the view that “all” doesn’t mean “all” in the natural sense (this is a contemporary development among some reformed commentators). The same principal applies to the doctrine of limited verses unlimted atonement. However, as an adherent to sola scriptura I must side with Calvin, who rejected this view quite forcefully. Moreover, sometimes words other than “all” are used in the context of atonement or salvation, which are more difficult to reconcile using the “some of all types” line of reasoning (for instance: God is not willing that ANY should perish, or use of the term “whole world” at 1 John 2:2 and so forth).

However, let’s consider for a moment the idea that God wants all of mankind to be saved.

**". . . and I [God] will accomplish all My good pleasure," (Isaiah 46:10).

“But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases,” (Psalm 115:3).

“Whatever the Lord pleases, He does,” (Psalm 135:6).**

So as we see here it becomes equally difficult to say God wants to save all people, since clearly God always accomplishes whatever He desires.

So do you think God will save all people or don’t you? If you do not then either you must think God will not accomplish all He set out to do, or that human free will can override the will of God. There simply is no logical third alternative under the dichotomy you present.

I choose to believe that God is God. He will accomplish all that He set out to do, and nothing (much less mere humans) can overcome the will of God.

The way Calvin resolved this paradox is a theory I’m frankly not sure I agree with. He believed in something he called the hidden will of God, or secret providence. Now in fairness Paul does give ample indication that such a secret will does exist. However, it would seem to me that what Calvin called the secret will of God wasn’t exactly a well kept secret, since scripture is full of references to the impending wrath that unbelievers will face. There are only a few verses that are Universal in nature, and the preponderance of scripture points us in the other direction.

It would seem to me that if there is anything to the idea of hidden providence it might be more aptly viewed in the Universalist direction. Martin Luther also held out this possibility, as did Karl Barth.

However, the preponderance of scripture does support Calvin and Augustine. So even if there is a hidden will of God that will save all souls at the end, the fact is unbelievers only truly have an expectation of wrath and judgment, whereas we do not. We are predestined for conformation into the image of Christ, while we are here on earth. In other words it is Christians who are charged with the transformation of mankind (as N.T. Wright so aptly points out). God wants us to reach all souls in every corner of the earth and through us God will deliver them to the freedom that is in Christ.

So notwithstanding all the verses pointing to the impending wrath and eternal damnation facing unbelievers, there is a small cased question mark in scripture given to us by a few verses sprinkled throughout the NT.

I do not believe it is right to say with any level of certainty what God has in store for the reprobate. However, they should know that unbelievers can only have an expectation of wrath. Certainly God has always shown more mercy than we expected (this is true throughout biblical history). However, only Christians can be sure that we will partake in the kingdom, all the rest cannot, this much is clear.

It is also clear that God wants us to know that He chooses us we do not choose Him. He doesn’t even give us a reason why. There is a very good reason for this. God wants unquestioned trust, love, and obedience.

Our first parents didn’t posses this unquestioned loyalty. Eve was quickly manipulated into a distrust of God. Our first parents weren’t given the knowledge of right and wrong, however, they shouldn’t have needed it. They should have simply relied on God to define right and wrong for them. Our potter is still teaching His creation this critical lesson. We are the branches and God is the root; and a branch cannot exist without the root.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

However, let’s consider for a moment the idea that God wants all of mankind to be saved.

“. . . and I [God] will accomplish all My good pleasure,” (Isaiah 46:10).

“But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases,” (Psalm 115:3).

“Whatever the Lord pleases, He does,” (Psalm 135:6).

Here’s what God wanted, and it’s exactly what he got.

God wanted to create free creatures in his image who he would love and who would be free to love him in turn. Coerced love is not love.

God wants all of his creations to choose to love him, but he can’t force us for this would invalidate his desires.

I do not believe it is right to say with any level of certainty what God has in store for the reprobate. However, they should know that unbelievers can only have an expectation of wrath. Certainly God has always shown more mercy than we expected (this is true throughout biblical history). However, only Christians can be sure that we will partake in the kingdom, all the rest cannot, this much is clear.

I agree for the most part. However, I don’t think those ignorant of Christ will be judged by the same standard as you and I.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Here’s what God wanted, and it’s exactly what he got.

God wanted to create free creatures in his image who he would love and who would be free to love him in turn. Coerced love is not love.

God wants all of his creations to choose to love him, but he can’t force us for this would invalidate his desires.

OK, I will say I’ve always agreed with your statement. However, upon deeper reflection I came to view that position as somewhat of an oversimplification.

I agree for the most part. However, I don’t think those ignorant of Christ will be judged by the same standard as you and I.

However, ignorance is not the sole issue, it is also a matter of being hardened to Christ in a way that makes it logically difficult to say everyone (even those who know about Christ) is given a genuine equal chance at salvation through faith.

Imagine being raised in Pakistan and educated in a Madras? I know a bit about this since I was deployed in the Middle East with the army just a couple years ago (and I spent about a year over there). A missionary has a far better chance with a cannibalistic jungle villager than they will with that Pakistani believe me.

It’s even deeper than this though. God places our souls into our bodies at our physical conception. When God does this don’t you think He knows that He’s placing a soul into a Pakistani versus an American or Italian or whatever? Don’t you think God knows that the Pakistani will have almost no chance of conversion to Christianity during his lifetime – but will be exposed to the Gospel message all the same?

I used to be a Methodist and Arminian in soteriology, so I studied John Wesley and Jacob Arminius and other Arminian scholars for years, who all would fully agree with your view that God gives us a high level of free will and at least all of those who are exposed to the Gospel message are given a genuine equal chance at salvation. Their major objection to Calvinist soteriology was on the grounds of divine justice. For them it simply wouldn’t be just if God elected some to the exclusion of others.

However, I began to wonder how is it really in accord with our sense of justice to imagine that the Pakistani, notwithstanding exposure to the Gospel message, has a genuine and equal opportunity at salvation as compared to a westerner raised in a Christian family? Can you imagine the psychological barriers to receiving Christ a person raised in such circumstances must face in comparison with you or I? Yet, God put him there didn’t He?

So the question becomes is a hypothetical long shot a genuine equal opportunity? Of course when framed this way most people would say of course not.

As for your statement: you don’t think those ignorant of Christ will be judged as you or I will, I do not disagree (although it’s somewhat speculative). First we will face the judgment seat of Christ, and all who believe in Him will not be put to shame. We are His sheep and He called us by name, and only His sheep can hear His voice. This is how it is presented by God. However, remember we a royal priesthood. We will be royalty in the coming kingdom. On that premise alone it’s certainly logical to say royalty must have subjects. If all believers are predestined to be royalty then who will be our subjects? It can only be unbelievers.

When you say those who are ignorant of Christ will be treated differently, I would say that all who reject Christ are ignorant of Him. If they weren’t how could they willfully subject themselves to doom?

So IMO it is very difficult to say people can really make a willful and informed choice for or against Christ.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

When you say those who are ignorant of Christ will be treated differently, I would say that all who reject Christ are ignorant of Him. If they weren’t how could they willfully subject themselves to doom?

So IMO it is very difficult to say people can really make a willful and informed choice for or against Christ.

Regarding your last statement above, I think you and I and millions of others can make an informed choice for or against Christ.

I believe that is possible for those ignorant of Christ to respond positively to God’s grace and thus receive atonement from Jesus.(I have no idea what Catholic Doctrine is here, this is a personal opinion)

Jesus said that the servant who knows his masters will and disobeys will receive a much more severe punishment than the servant who doesn’t know.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Regarding your last statement above, I think you and I and millions of others can make an informed choice for or against Christ.

I believe that is possible for those ignorant of Christ to respond positively to God’s grace and thus receive atonement from Jesus.(I have no idea what Catholic Doctrine is here, this is a personal opinion)

Jesus said that the servant who knows his masters will and disobeys will receive a much more severe punishment than the servant who doesn’t know.

I actually think the RCC allows for quite a bit of freedom with regard to soteriology (there are still many, particularly in the Catholic clergy that hold a similar view regarding predestination as I do – the Pope is a huge fan of Augustine whose theology I love).

The statement you’re citing is Luke 12:47-48, however, if you read the context – the statement is referring to believers only (which is apparent when you look at the preceding verse# 46).

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine (John 17:9).

The above verse is an example of what I’m referring to. When you really look at scripture it presents predestination in a very straight forward manner.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I actually think the RCC allows for quite a bit of freedom with regard to soteriology (there are still many, particularly in the Catholic clergy that hold a similar view regarding predestination as I do – the Pope is a huge fan of Augustine whose theology I love).

The statement you’re citing is Luke 12:47-48, however, if you read the context – the statement is referring to believers only (which is apparent when you look at the preceding verse# 46).

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine (John 17:9).

The above verse is an example of what I’m referring to. When you really look at scripture it presents predestination in a very straight forward manner.

Predestination as understood by Calvinists ignores the fact that time means nothing to God.

All we have thought said and done is not future or past to God, it merely is what we are.

God chooses those who follow his will. Those who follow his will are predestined in the sense that God knows what we will do and what we would have done in other circumstances.

ONLY those who do the will of the father will enter heaven.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Predestination as understood by Calvinists ignores the fact that time means nothing to God.

All we have thought said and done is not future or past to God, it merely is what we are.

God chooses those who follow his will. Those who follow his will are predestined in the sense that God knows what we will do and what we would have done in other circumstances.

ONLY those who do the will of the father will enter heaven.

You have to remember it’s not only Calvinists who think this way, Augustine (can there be anyone more Catholic than him?) is the doctor of predestination and grace. However, we do also recognize that God is outside of time, and for God the past, future, and present are seamless (and are visible in the same observation).

A buddy I was deployed with a couple years back was a physics guy and also a devout Christian (he was actually closer to your view on this topic, but he adhered to open view theology, and would point to instances in scripture where God seems to change His mind – believing that indicates God does not have exhaustive indefinite foreknowledge). I also like physics as a hobby (although I wound up going to law school for some reason) and we used to debate this topic (any good Calvinist worth his salt will always attribute the most power imaginable to God).

I of course believe God can see the future. When debating this with my buddy I would point to the fact that God is omnipresent and then use Einsteins relativity theory to show how an omnipresent being must be able to see the future. Sounds sort of wacky I know, but leave a couple of Christians with advanced degrees in the desert for long enough and we start discussing some weird theories … but it’s really not so weird if you understand relativity. Anyway, since you pointed out to me that God exists outside of time gladly I don’t have to sell you on the fact that God does in fact have exhaustive foreknowledge.

OK, but does that mean that God chose us on the basis of foreseen faith? Does that mean that God did anything based on foreknowledge? The question really is does foreknowledge precede providence?

The answer (and Augustine who also initially thought as you do) must be no for one simple reason. It would have God doing what He knew He would do because He knew He was going to do it. It would make God a prisoner of His own knowledge.

When you think about it logically it can get mind boggling. However, I tried hard to remain Arminian and I studied this issue back to front & the logic of Augustine and Calvin is really undeniable. There’s a reason why someone as brilliant as Augustine, who early on in his theological career would have agreed with the foreseen faith idea, came to reject it.

So IMO anyway (and that of many great theologians) foreseen faith is not the answer to this question. I think it really is divine providence. We are the clay and God is the potter.

You know it would be really great if we could debate scripture in a more structured way on this forum. In other sites I post on (with a more protestant leaning) we actually have structured debates on scripture. For instance, on Romans 9 (which is great chapter to learn about predestination, grace, and providence). Anyways, my two cents.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

OK, but does that mean that God chose us on the basis of foreseen faith? Does that mean that God did anything based on foreknowledge? The question really is does foreknowledge precede providence?

The answer (and Augustine who also initially thought as you do) must be no for one simple reason. It would have God doing what He knew He would do because He knew He was going to do it. It would make God a prisoner of His own knowledge.

Foreknowledge only precedes providence from your perspective in time.

Your view must ignore the explicit intructions in scripture that tell us which actions and beliefs are required for us to be obedient.

We both agree on the necessity of grace. I believe that God gave all humans the ability to use this grace because he loves us. I believe he knows who will(already has) accept his grace. These are the chosen.

All instructions urging obedience, perseverence, prayer, etc. would be meaningless unless we were expected to follow.

Regarding physics, I also love modern physics.

Are you familiar with Frank Tipler? Some of his views are out there but he makes some very compelling points.

He wrote: The Physics of Immortality

and : The Physics of Christianity

I haven’t read the second book but I scanned through it last week and I will read it soon.

Tipler uses modern physics to offer possible explanations for eternal life, the trinity, etc.