Synaesthesia

*lol* That's beautiful.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
Satan's aspect is as great to human perception as God's.

Kenny

Hey Tercel,

Finals are over. I know I said I had no plans to continue this thread, but, oh well….

The Great Divorce is a wonderful book. I don’t agree with all of the theological points Lewis seems to be making in there, but much of what he has to say there is profound. I have given it to some of my non-Christian friends to read before.

I think most western Protestant Christians disapprove of the idea of salvation after death because, at best, it’s extra-Biblical (there’s very little support for it in the Scriptures) or because, at worst, it contradicts the Biblical portrayal. The tenor of the New Testament’s apocalyptic view seems to be that judgment is immanent, soon to overtake humanity just as Noah’s flood, and there doesn’t seem to be any notion of a second chance after all is said and done. Furthermore, the idea seems to diminish the moral importance of this life and the urgency of receiving the Gospel now. Finally, I think, to many Western Protestants, the idea seems superfluous. At some point along the road, people will encounter a point where their eternal destiny is forever locked in, one way or the other, so why does it need to take any longer than this life span? Of course, I realize that arguments could be advanced in the other direction, but that is why conservative Western churches tend to think that way

Yes, that is the Eastern as well as the Arminian view. It is a good view, in my opinion, insofar as it recognizes the inherent lack of moral ability bound up with in the human heart alone and the need of God’s grace. It does not say that we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps like Pelagianism did. However, I think the view is deficient in that it merely pushes the question as to why some willingly receive God’s salvation and why others reject it back a step…

I agree that we have power and control and free choice over what we become. But, since we are sinful beings bent on worshiping ourselves rather than God, what we freely choose when left to ourselves is to reject God and make ourselves into self-centered beings. As Calvin put it, we are voluntary slaves. We act freely, but the problem is that our affections are improperly directed. Without God’s grace to redirect our affections, we will willfully continue on the self-centered path which ultimately leads to our eternal (but still voluntarily received!) misery.

That’s true and needs to be acknowledged. However, I believe that the Arminian (or Eastern) position suffers from a happy inconsistency on this point…

Yes, but then the question arises, why did I chose to allow God to make me into what He wanted me to be while others refuse? Did it have anything to do with myself or not? If it had something to do with myself, then there must have been something within me that was responsive to God which was not in the others. If it had nothing to do with myself, then I do not see how it could be attributed to my own freewill.

But, as far as I can tell, appealing to freewill still leaves open the question of why some accept and some reject and leaves that question unanswered unless it appeals to some merit (or lack thereof) within ourselves. So, I don’t think the freewill explanation fares any better. Furthermore, I do not think that the higher purposes argument fares as badly as you might think. Sometimes the Scripture gives us clues as to what those purposes are.

Paul said that he was set apart before he was born so that he might be an Apostle to the Gentiles, for example. One of the New Testament scholars at my seminary argues that this explains the numerous references in Paul to his being a “debtor” to the Gentiles. This, according to my professor, is not merely a metaphor of moral obligation, but a literal debt – he owes them his salvation! -- because they are the purpose for which he was saved. Now, I suppose Paul could ask himself why he was chosen to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and not someone else, but that’s rather like asking why one was born as opposed to someone else -- if the situation were different, then the other person would be asking the same question, so the question has little meaning. Someone needed to fill the role and Paul is the one God picked to do it. One thing that it did not have anything to do with, however, was Paul’s own merit because, as Paul repeatedly acknowledges, he had formerly been the enemy of Christ and therefore has no ground for boasting -- but, then again, neither do the rest of us because not a single one of us is righteous.

Along these lines, we read in Ephesians chapter two that God has saved us by His grace apart from any merit within us “unto good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do.” Like Paul, God has saved us because he has purposes to be fulfilled and He has chosen us to fulfill them. Like Paul, we are debtors to God as well as those around us to fulfill the good purposes to which God has called us. Our salvation is not simply and end in itself, but a means to a higher good and realizing that, in my own experience at least, is very empowering for living the Christian life!

Further glimpses into God’s purposes in election which the New Testament gives us into God’s purposes would be the hardening of Israel in Romans 9-11 so that the Gospel could be spread to the Gentiles, Paul’s statements to the Corinthians that God chose the weak things of this world to shame the strong, etc.

Ditto!

In Christ,
Kenny

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Fiach

There are obviously other factors. Remember my earlier statement that few if any people are at extremes of the non-religious to hyperreligious spectrum. There are may who have a weak penetration of the gene. Not all of us have black or blonde hair. There are red heads and brown heads. These people have some tendencies to religion but also have doubts about beliefs and go from one to the other seeking one that fits. Many of these if raised in a very secular society like Scotland or Netherlands or Japan will be agnostics at least if not atheists. Those same genetic phenotypes if raised in Alabama or Saudi Arabia will under peer pressure and social adaptation allow themselves to be convinced.

Fiach

Answerer

Just curious, Kenny, which sect of christinity are you from?

Kenny

Well, that’s actually something of a complex question

I grew up in independent Bible churches (i.e. churches which were not part of a larger organizational structure). When I was in college I attended the Baptist Student Union (but around 40% of those who attended were not Baptist) and I became a member of a Southern Baptist church because I really liked the pastor and the congregation. But, I feel no particular loyalty to or identification with the Southern Baptist Convention itself and I have some minor disagreements with their theology at certain points. My wife does identify herself as Southern Baptist, however. It was also in College that I began to take a liking to much of what Reformed tradition (i.e. then tradition of John Calvin) had to offer. Though there are still a few minor points which I find questionable, I would say that my theological outlook is, on the whole, Reformed.

Recently my wife and I moved to Pasadena California (from Missouri) so that I could attend <a href="http://www.fuller.edu" target="_blank"> Fuller Theological Seminary</a> (which is evangelical and multi-denominational). We have begun to attend a church which is part of and organization called <a href="http://www.pdinet.org/about/" target="_blank">Sovereign Grace Ministries</a>. This organization describes itself as “essentially Reformed with a significant charismatic dimension.” In other words, they are Calvinists and Charismatics at the same time – a rather unique combination, but one that seems to balance out the possible extremes of both traditions rather well. In terms of theological outlook, this group of churches seems to fit well with mine. My wife and I both really enjoy this church and plan to take its membership class when it starts up next year.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Answerer

Okay, its a bit of confusing. I gathered that you are a Calvinist and a Charismatics in your views. But what I don't understand is why you choose these two protestant sects over others. What is so different from your 'chosen' sects with the other protestant sects like Anglican, Lutherian, Moravian or Baptists(reformed and not reformed)?

Kenny

Well, first of all, I am “Charismatic” only insofar as I believe that all of the spiritual gifts found in the New Testament are capable of finding expression today as the Holy Spirit sees fit to distribute them. However, I have personally never exercised gifts such as speaking in tongues or prophecy or healing, etc., but I do not believe that there is any Biblical basis (as some Christians and Denominations do) for dismissing such gifts as no longer applicable in our time. That being said, however, it really doesn’t make much difference to me whether I attend a Charismatic or non-Charismatic church provided that the teaching and practice in that church is, on the whole, Biblical. Unfortunately, Charismaticism is often given to excesses which would make both my wife and I uncomfortable in many Charismatic churches. The Reformed element of the church we currently attend, however, seems to provide a check for the possible excesses which might otherwise come from its Charismatic element, and everything seems to have a healthy balance there.

Second, there is a large difference between what my theological outlook is and what the particular church and denomination I happen to attend is. Denominationalism was never very important to me. In fact, one of the reasons I chose a multi-denominational seminary was so that I could be exposed to all the diversity the Christian community has to offer. All that really matters is whether or not, on the whole, the church we attend is Biblical in its teaching and practice and whether or not it is a place in which my wife and I both can worship, participate, minister, fellowship, and experience spiritual growth. It doesn’t really matter if the church or denomination agrees with my theology on every minor point either (since I haven’t found any that do) so long as there’s enough agreement for my wife and I to both be supportive of what that church is teaching and doing on the whole and enough room for disagreement on whatever minor points we might happen to disagree with. Heck, even my wife and I don’t agree on every little theological point! All that being said, I would be comfortable attending a very wide number of different types of churches in various denominations.

Finally, I have chosen my Reformed theological outlook because both Biblical as well as philosophical considerations have led me to the point where I believe that it is true. It was simply the end result of, at least, a couple of years of (often very agonizing) reflection and study. I didn’t chose such an outlook arbitrarily or lightly and I am always open to subjecting my views to further Biblical and philosophical criticism in order to refine them and thereby, by God’s grace, be as faithful to the truth revealed in His Word as possible.

God Bless,
Kenny.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I ask, by what cause will God find love in the hearts of those who will rejoice in His light? Will not that love be the result of what God Himself has done in those hearts? Will there be any ground for boasting in those hearts that they did it themselves or that it was simply part of who they were in their “eternal selves”? Were it not for the work of God’s grace, would God find any human hearts in which there was not hatred? If there is one thing that the West has understood better than the East, in my opinion, it would be the degree to which the disease of sin afflicts the human heart, how stubborn and rebellious that heart truly is, and how much in need it is of God’s grace to change it.

Yecch. What a poisonous, hate-filled pen!

Kenny

I’m not sure which aspects of what I have written you see as “hate filled.” That human beings, in their current state, are self-centered and hateful towards others (note, I did not say that there was nothing but hatred in the human heart, only that there is some in every heart) is not only the implication of the Christian doctrine of original sin, but an empirical fact as far as my observations of the world are concerned. Racism, greed, genocide, ethnocentrism – these things don’t show any signs of ending anytime soon, despite all our best efforts. They ought to be continually opposed, because they are evil and it is good that evil should be opposed, but we should not kid ourselves into thinking we’re going to rid ourselves of them without addressing the condition of the human heart which causes them.

Furthermore, the reason I came to the conclusions which I have concerning our current moral inability to respond to God, aside from Biblical considerations, is a constant refusal to see myself as coming to believe in God out of a moral superiority to anyone else. By recognizing that I am fully dependent on God’s grace and am in the same moral boat as everyone else otherwise, I am driven to have nothing but compassion for all people, to look past whatever faults they may have, and love them in spite of those faults, just as God has loved me. Universal love, compassion, and a willingness to forgive all, no matter what they have done, are the implications of what I have written – not hatred.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

spurly

He knows it. And it breaks his heart. He is waiting, waiting, waiting, for people to come to him. He doesn't want to send anyone into an eternal existence without him.

But would it have been better just to create people who had to accept him regardless of whether or not they wanted to? Just wondering.

Kevin