C.S. Lewis: "If nothing remains...

Andy,

Actually, you are taking personally what is intended as an observation regarding Calvinism. Why would there be a gospel, Andy, if there is nothing we can do about it -- being saved, that is?

skypair

 

Well, the more I read of him, the more "quirky" I think some of his thoughts are. He does seem to teach the "sanctification model" for salvation. I do think some of his thoughts go right to the issue, as in this case.

Huh? The Bible is not for sharing with the lost? See, that'd confirm what Lesis is saying, John. You can explain salvation/election without Christianity -- it's all predestined, fate -- and your explanation is no better foundation than a book you say was written to you.

You're really into this "election" thing, aren't you. How do you know you are "elect," John?? Maybe the Bible ISN'T for your comfort.

skypair

 

John, you are totally wrong here. It is PARABLES that were written for believers only. Wow. You need some edgication!

skypair

 

donnA -- get it through your head. I am NOT misrepresenting YOUR beliefs. I am revealing the errors of Calvinism, NOT YOUR errors. I cited the Westminister Confession regarding "He finds nothing in man" and "unconditional election" which, if true, would basically make the Bible a nice history book (another explanation) and nothing more.

I DO consider everyone to be brothers in Christ -- and maintain that they did NOT get saved by the Calvinism that they now subscribe to.

donnA -- that just shows that you have NOT followed my "development" as a Christian here! I have acquiesed to Calvinists that the Bible says that we are "given" faith. It is not of us!

I have sought to reconconcile our differences be pointing out that Calvinism does not distinguish between soul and spirit and that consideration ought to be given to the difference so that we can come to agreement.

I have offered an explanation for "sovereignty" that I believe lies somewhere between our differences so that we can understand it alike as the Bible describes it.

Your complaint is basically that I shouldn't challenge false teachings, isn't it? That I am not "my brother's keeper." Well, that is not the Christianity I have been given. How about you?

skypair

 

Hi Rob,

I actually wanted to cite more but it is ponderous to read as well as to type. :type:

I have a book of selected essays titled "The Grand Miracle, And Other..." In my book, it is the last sentence in para. 4.

No, it wasn't about Calvinism. But as you remark, it would include ANY explanation that doesn't require the miraculous to explain. "Election" as being the choosing of some people and not others by God is NOT miraculous. It is a very well understood, natural concept that God could pick whom He wants arbitrarily.

Where's the miracle in that, Rob?? I don't even see how that would involve Christ at all in salvation. His only function in such a scenario would be as a "great Teacher" to sanctify or prepare "the chosen ones" for heaven, right?

skypair

skypair

 

Dear Larry -- we're obviously not communicating very well, are we? I cited the essay by name. You could Google it, right? Look for para. 4, last sentence.

Yeah, IF one is "elect" -- and IF one can know one is "elect." But what you are saying is the Christ is the "Great Teacher" of the "elect" but not the "Great Savior" because God chose them arbitrarily!

Look at it like Lewis did -- you're looking for an explanation of the salvation of men. Why would the notion of God choosing only certain people require that anyone actually believe Christianity?? Mightn't Christianity not just be one of the teachings given by God to those He chose? Cause remember -- salvation is "unconditional" and "God finds NOTHING in man" that He should choose one and not another.

Im sorry, Larry, but this is another error of Calvinism -- the "total inability" of man. How impossible it is for man to do good, though men choose and do good every day!

Your comment reveals that you see Christ, then, as the "Great Teacher." Maybe you didn't mean to say it that way?? IOW, how much knowledge is saving to you, Larry?

Please, PLEASE show me my error in that. I would love to be able to communicate with you but it so appears that all the "elect" are/will be saved and all the saved are "elect." The ONLY intermediate step you've given me to work with is something you call "effectual calling" and much as I tried to enquire on that issue (even designing comparative diagrams!), I still do not see my confusion as much as I see your indoctrination.

It's almost like an "afterthought" though, Larry. The OT Jews had this similar idea -- that God had "chosen" them and that one day He would appear and take away their sin magically, may I say. To them, the method of taking their sin away was secondary to the fact that, in Judaism, they would be chosen! I don't even know that they thought the method would be "miraculous" so much as judicial.

Sure it does (1) -- your view is strongly linked to OT Judaism wherein their "choosing" was the explanation for their salvation. And it wasn't even the true picture.

As for (2) -- "unconditional election" is Calvinism, right? That "explanation" lies outside the shed blood of Christ as regarding who is saved and who is not. That the blood is later applied to the "elect" or is applied to their account "before the foundation of the world" is, as I see it, merely an extension of OT Judaism.

As to (3) -- we don't communicate, Larry, because (from my perspective at least) you are not teachable. I have endeavored mightily to make peace among brethern around the truth of God's word (see my post above to donnA) -- to achieve the "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." I have tried tirelessly to understand some of the lame, extrabiblical definitions that Calvin gives to terms and ideas, but Larry -- if they don't appear in scripture, how can you accuse ME of and not Calvin of "flaws?" Maybe you wouldn't recognize a flaw if you saw one. :saint:

Well, you can use your influence and we can just go on not considering things that you find uncomfortable. That wouldn't be very honest of you though, would it.

skypair

 

There you go, pipedude!

I think the point is, too, to take fresh approaches to the debate. I was reading Lewis essay "Christian Apologetics" last night and came across this -- "But I insist that wherever you draw the lines [bounding Christianity], bounding lines must exist, beyond which your doctrine will cease either to be Anglican or Christian: and I suggest also that lines come sooner than many modern priests think. I think your duty is to fix the lines clearly in your own minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession.
"This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. ... We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing your ministry after you have come to hold them."

No person at BB is being addressed here, BTW. This is merely an admonition against teaching "honestly held" opinions that contradict scripture.

skypair

 

Russel -- what does the "U" in TULIP stand for?

skypair

 

Do you deny that salvation is on account of "election?" God having chosen that person?

What other "necessary things?"

See, I agree with this but why is the "supernatural" work done in the first place, Russ? Because that person was chosen/"elected" in eternity past, right? Unless you are departing from the foundational theme of Calvinism, they were NOT chosen because God foreknew that they would believe. Is there anything miraculous about God choosing you to give all these supernatural advantages to?? No -- it's a decision. He can choose us all but doesn't. He could make us all "believe" just like He does the "chosen." ALL the miraculous part, you see, comes AFTER the choosing to salvation.

Or salvation could have been as the OT Jews saw it -- God just resurrects the "chosen" and forgives them judicially, then miraculously puts a new heart in them.

skypair

 

Are you going to answer my question?

Do you have children, Andy? Do you show them their faults? Do you love them? Do you disown them?

Andy, are we still "stuck" with a 400 year old paradigm that doesn't even take into account a lot of issues like eschatology, like triunity of the human person, like Israel, on and on??? Andy, the ill-contructed building (1Cor 3) apparently has to be brought down one brick at a time. Men were NOT careful how they built thereon!

skypair