I'm sure this is a sentiment shared by many Armenians. As he suggests, I, a confessing Calvinist, have thought about it. The key ramification is that this God I serve, the Creator of the universe, some how sees to create a being named Lucifer who will ultimately lead many others to destruction and leave now option but for God to sacrifice His own son just to set the elect free - and all this so that He would be glorified. As I noted in previous posts, this is what I think it boils down too and although it feels hard, I can live with that.
Or said another way, I see it fitting with Scripture (which trumps my thinking and feelings). All other options have failed both the whole of Scripture test and they don't even make sense to me.
For example, Olson asks, "What if God is in charge but not in control? What if God wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?" Sorry, I cannot track with that. In charge but not in control? I'll need more definition of those words because the definitions I apply either make the sentence nonsensical or leave me in a place that in non-Scriptural and frankly, quite a bit more scary than the Calvinistic conclusion.
Olson seems most concerned that the Calvinist position really demands that God is the author of evil. "Coincidently", Mathis is on part 3 of a 4 part series. So far he has covered God authoring sin, causing sin, and permitting sin. His conclusions seem sound to me and I can continue to rest easy in my Calvinism (Deo Volente).
Technorati Tags: Calvinism
8 comments:
God is not Calvinistic. Most disturbing of all is Limited Atonement that removes part of Christ's redemption on the cross.
And to arive at that requires an open and disengenuous change of the open meaning of Scripture.
The word "world" doesn't mean the world, the world "all" doesn't mean all, and the word "every" man doesn't mean every.
And the same reformed scholars skewer anyone who attempts to manipulate the slightest point of Scripture and what could trump teaching that the Son of God didn't love the world (Jn3:16) enough to die for every man? That is a lie, Jesus, the Creator, died for all sinners on the cross.
Golgotha 101
Rick - I won't skewer you but I will humbly disagree. The good news is that I can allow that either way, there's a good chance we both are saved.
Peace.
Hello Rick - I can swallow a reformed theology that doesn't include limited atonement. Even Calvin had to torture Scripture so as to make it fit because he didn't originall recognize it because Scripture doesn't teach it.
Whether overt or subliminal, espousing that view will afeect one's view and practice of missions both personal and world wide.
However, I admire the reformed thirst for truth and love of Scripture, I feel strongly that tampering with the redemption is unbiblical. The question is could an Egyptian kill a lamb and place the blood on his doorposts and have been saved? THere, let's chew on that one!
Blessings - GO IRISH!!!!
Henry - I think the real question for you is: did the Egyptian need to put blood on his doorposts in order to save his son?
Of course he did, his firstborn died!
Henry, the point is, even in the model of salvation we have there in the old(er) testament, even allowing an affirmative answer to your initial question, there is an essential difference between those who painted their doors and those who did not. Those who painted their doors trusted in God to fulfill His promises, and in so doing, were saved. Those who did not, were not.
Henry,
The real question is not, "...could an Egyptian kill a lamb and place the blood on his doorposts and have been saved?" but rather, "Why did God NOT tell the Egyptians to put blood on their doorposts?" Why did God reveal this crucial information to the Jews but not to the Egyptians?
The Egyptians, Henry, never even had the necessary information to be saved from the executing hand of YAHWEH. They didn't even know how to be saved from YAHWEH's wrath.
Why do you think the Lord withheld that information, Henry? Is He a bully? Is He unfair? Is He partial? What do you think? Does God's word provide an answer?
In your words, Henry, "There, chew on that one!"
Timotheos
Just came across this blog as I was surfing the net.
Though this is an old post, here's my two cents:
Henry - the blood of the Lamb on the doorposts is a great illustration of particular redemption ("limited atonement"). It was only those who had the blood applied to their doorposts whose sons were saved. All the rest lost the lives of their first born sons.
I like what the other Rick (blog owner) said..."There's a good chance we are both saved."
Post a Comment