Liver And Onions
Thanks to Rose for the heads-up on this blog: Liver and Onions. I haven't read it all, but from what I've read so far his posts on Calvinism are spot on!
Labels: Calvinism
posted by Dawn @ 2/18/2007 11:55:00 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Nice to see some posting from you.
As for liver I could never acquire a taste for it. It's like I have a predisposition against the stuff, or is it my choice? Hmmm...two parallel roads leading to ?
Thanks for stopping by, Leo.
Maybe some day in the near future I can post something of substance.
Leo: "As for liver I could never acquire a taste for it. It's like I have a predisposition against the stuff, or is it my choice? Hmmm...two parallel roads leading to ?"
Is this your way of saying that you do not like the Liver And Onions site?
Not at all just some silliness on my part. I was trying to link my dislike of liver with a thought of divine ordination that predisposed me against liver while realizing my own choice.
I have only glanced at the Liver and Onion site but will give it a deeper dive.
Hope all is well
You silly goose. ;-)
I did catch the predistination/choice thing, but then wondered if there was something deeper going on there.
All is well and I hope all is well with you.
Dawn,
I noticed the post you linked to did not provide any Scripture. I have a post here at Bluecollar that you may have interest in that does have Scripture and even a picture.
Hi Jazzy Cat, thanks for stopping by.
I popped in and read a couple of your posts with scripture and pictures. You've taken the scriptures out of context and made them say things they do not. Are we totally depraved? Yes (one sin renders us totally depraved in the sight of a Holy God), but that does not equate to inability in light of the grace of God. God's grace comes in many forms (the written and oral word of God, creation, the Spirit of God, etc.) which enable us to respond. God's grace is upon ALL mankind. It's when we reject that grace that we get into trouble, the ultimate trouble being given over to a reprobate mind.
There is no such thing as irresistable grace. That is simply a fig newton of the Calvinist imagination. People REJECT the grace of God every second of the day.
There is no such thing as unconditional election taught in the bible. We are "elect" and "chosen" of God when we believe and receive Him. God does not simply choose people to Heaven and Hell on a mere whim. Nor does He choose for reasons only He knows. He's plainly laid out the qualifications for becoming one of the "elect" or "chosen": believe, receive, repent. Abilities He's given ALL of us by His grace.
The reason we have no ability to boast is because we can do NOTHING to save ourselves. We do not have that power as it rests solely upon the Lord. All that is required of us is simply to believe, receive and repent. We place our faith (yes, we as sinners have faith) IN Jesus. I do believe that God gives us a deeper saving faith once we are born again. I may be wrong about that, but it's how I see it at this time.
As for being able to seek God: we DO have that ability because God GAVE it to us by His common grace. The Romans 3:10-11 is taken out of context. (Paul's point was to show the Jews that they are just as guilty as the Gentiles.) It is not stating that we CANNOT seek God, it's simply saying that sometimes we DO NOT seek God. God WANTS us to seek him. He puts us in situations that CAUSE us to seek Him. (Acts 17:26-28) Some do, some don't. Some do, but then grow cold toward God and turn aside just as the psalmist (Psalm 14:1-3) that Paul is quoting states. Some seek OTHER gods or a god of their own making. Some are fools and have decided that they don't believe there is a God.
The bible is quite clear starting from the first book and the first family that we can in fact seek Him (because He allows it), but many seek a God of their own making. There is only one way to God and that is through the man Christ Jesus. The man who died for ALL.
Any ability that we have IS given us by God. However, the Calvinist has taken that ability away when God has NOT.
I thought the picture of your cat was very cute.
Take Care
Dawn,
Thanks for visiting over at Jazzy Cat. There are many passages that teach total inability such as John 6:44, 6:65, Ephesians 2:1-5, Rom. 8:7, and Romans 9 to name a few. Over at Rose's blog, Daniel has done an excellent job of pointing out to you how God has been about choosing from the beginning. I would encourage you to take a look there at his response to you......
Ah, the calvinism debate is on again.
Too many Calvinists are married to the old terms - divorce the acrostic! I think the key distinction is that humans are unwilling to respond to the gospel without the work of the Spirit. One of the works of the Spirit is to make Christ attractive to the person outside of Christ hence they become willing.
I have often wondered if the "elect" are the bare minimum and that more can come as the Saints pray and plead with God.
Leo: "I think the key distinction is that humans are unwilling to respond to the gospel without the work of the Spirit."
True, but I think the Holy Spirit works on us all. Do you not believe that?
Leo: "I have often wondered if the "elect" are the bare minimum and that more can come as the Saints pray and plead with God."
What makes you say this? It sounds as though you don't believe that everyone has the chance, but I may be misinterpreting you.
I absolutely believe that the Spirit works on us all. You may also recall that I believe the antinomy view that states that divine sovereignty and human responsibility cannot be reconciled by we mere humans.
The famous line from Packer:
The particular antinomy which concerns us here is the apparent opposition between divine sovereignty and human responsiblilty, or (putting it more biblically) what He God does as King and what He does as Judge. Scripture teaches that, as King, He orders and controls all things, human actions among them, in accordance with His own eternal purpose.* Scripture also teaches that, as Judge, He holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues.** Thus, hearers of the gospel are responsible for their reaction; if they reject the good news, they are guilty of unbelief. 'He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed...' Again, Paul, entrusted with the gospel, is responsible for preaching it; if he neglects his commission, he is penalized for unfaithfulness. 'Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe to me, if I preach not the gospel!' God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are taught us side by side in the same Bible; sometimes, indeed, in the same text.(Luke 22:22; "And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" NKJV) Both are thus guaranteed to us by the same divine authority; both, therefore, are true. It follows that they must be held together, and not played off against each other. Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled though he is a responsible moral agent. God's sovereignty is a reality, and man's responsiblilty is a reality too.--JI Packer "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God." page 22
Piper, of course, has no use for the antinomy While his logic is impressive I am not sure that it is biblical. I may one day come to his view but am not there yet. So I go on unable to reconcile the two being only human. One must bear in mind Spurgeon who says that there is no need to reconcile friends. Of course the doctrine of limited atonement is not one that I easily grasp and have grave problems trying to reconcile it to scripture. At this point I am agnostic on limited atonement. I see the logic but not clear biblical support for the doctrine.
Holding to the antinomy allows me to be passionate about evangelism and grateful for election.
So as to my statement: "I have often wondered if the "elect" are the bare minimum and that more can come as the Saints pray and plead with God." It is a great struggle for me to believe that some are chosen and others are not. It is Biblical but I hope upon the mercy of God for others. Clear as mud?
The link you provided did not work. I think this is the article you were try to link to, but let me know if it is not.
Antinomy
Leo: "It is a great struggle for me to believe that some are chosen and others are not. It is Biblical but I hope upon the mercy of God for others. Clear as mud?
"Holding to the antinomy allows me to be passionate about evangelism and grateful for election."
I'm glad you're able to reconcile things in your own mind. If I were to believe that only certain people were chosen to Heaven and others to Hell, I would adopt the same attitude.
I did not say that I believe in double predestination. I believe in election but not reprobation which I believe to be a hideous doctrine. There is an important difference. The latter (election) is passive in that God leaves the unelect to their own choice but the former is active in which God determines to elect some to hell.
Leo: "The latter (election) is passive in that God leaves the unelect to their own choice but the former is active in which God determines to elect some to hell."
No offense, but I think it's the same difference.
No offense taken. I see your point. I guess having sat face to face with people who actually believe in reprobation and double predestination makes all the difference to me. These are horrible doctrines.
Post a Comment
<< Home