Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | DocTrinsograce | 165045 | ||
Dear Tim, Ah... the "self evident" argument! ;-) I was afraid you might have be erroneously implying that such was a doctrine of the Reformers. I have a familiarity and intimacy with the theology of Calvin which permits me to speak with some specificity on the subject. Consequently, I hope you won't think me presumptuous to instruct you so that you might more correctly represent that thinking in the future. Calvinism acknowledges the antinomy of both doctrines: God's will that all men be saved and the unconditional election of some men. Both doctrines are Scriptural. Whereas some have erred on the side of denying one doctrine over the other, Calvinism is left with the unenviable task or reconciling them. Consequently, excepting both doctrines leaves us with the implication that there are two kinds of "wills" or "two ways of willing". (This certainly wouldn't be entirely alien to the human experience.) If you spend some time digging a little deeper you will find much early church deliberation on this topic, and a revival of interest in it from the time of the Reformation. Augustine, for example, spoke of the voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure). Since then, there are other phrases used: "the efficient will and the permissive will," "the secret will and the revealed will," "the will of decree and the will of command," "decretive will and preceptive will," "sovereign will and moral will." Most well-read Arminians are aware of these discussions. Did you -- or was it someone else -- cite Clark Pinnok recently? He is highly critical of this perspective. But such criticism is hardly new. Jonathan Edwards wrote, "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say He may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of His contradicted another." However, the Arminians do not universally disagree. Howard Marshall wrote, "To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what He actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." There's a lot that could be said on this topic. It is not my aim to defend it or to fully define it. I simply wanted to correct the misrepresentation of John Calvin and the divines who wrote the Westminster Confession. Thank you for the opportunity. :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | DocTheo | 165062 | ||
Hello DocTrinsograce, You wrote: Howard Marshall wrote, "To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what He actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." I'm sorry, but it is hard to follow your posts as to when you do or do not agree with the many quotes you offer. Regarding the one that I have copied and pasted here, Do you agree with the statement by Marshall? If you do, then I believe you very much agree with Mr. Moran. Every person is in need of God gracious gift of salvation. Salvation is offered to every person (every as in all, as in no single one not included). Some will reject that gift. Some will accept and receive that gift. There is no work involved. Howard Marshall's quote very specifically articulates exactly what Mr. Moran has been saying (correct me Mr. Moran if I am wrong in my understanding of you). Let's not rewrite the statements of others on the forum using our own language to misrepresent what they have already clearly said and by doing accuse them of false teaching. This is unbecoming behavior. In Him, DocTheo |
||||||
3 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | DocTrinsograce | 165070 | ||
Dear DocTheo, I was discussing the doctrine of the two wills of God. I intentionally did not state my agreement or disagreement with it, since my objective was to inform. Brother Tim was asserting what others believe. I was correcting those misstatements. You wrote, "Let's not rewrite the statements of others on the forum using our own language to misrepresent what they have already clearly said and by doing accuse them of false teaching. This is unbecoming behavior." (sic) Please point out where I have misrepresented someone. Repeating an idea to another person using our own words is a pretty crucial method to insure effective communication. How else might others know to correct our understanding? In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 165074 | ||
Hello Doctrinesograce, "sic"? Once again brother, unbecoming behavior. It is not necessary for me to point out where you have misrepresented someone. It is clear to all in this very thread. Please refer to: post #165049. Your wording does not honestly reflect any meaning that Mr. Moran was clearly teaching. It's not my intention to quibble with you so please, accept redirection as you expect those whom you redirect to, without resorting to school yard language "(sic)". |
||||||
5 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | DocTrinsograce | 165080 | ||
School yard language? Perhaps I should explain: The word "sic" is Latin. It means "thus." It is used to indicate that a quote was being duplicated as it appeared in the original, without correcting its errors. It shows that the copying writer did not introduce the errrors that appear in the copy, but retained them from the original. Read the full thread. You'll see that I'm patiently working with Tim to come up with wording with which he will agree. |
||||||
6 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 165097 | ||
My apologies, Perhaps you should have used English to convey your point. My apologies for not understanding Latin. Jeff |
||||||
7 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | DocTrinsograce | 165103 | ||
Dear Jeff, It is a commonly used in academic writing and has been done for a long time. http://www.aston.ac.uk/lss/external/latin.jsp I should be the one apologizing. I get so used to reading this stuff -- and all the writing I have to do at work -- I don't think twice about using the more common abbreviations and Latin words. But it tends to get me in trouble since this sort of thing is no longer commonly taught in our schools. Consequently, I end up failing to communicate. :-( Thanks for letting me explain. In Him, Doc |
||||||
8 | explain the doctrine of predistination | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 165106 | ||
Hello Doc, Thanks for making this clear for me. I have a higher education and multiple degrees and honestly have never encountered the word in any writing. Of course, my studies have probably been far different from yours. Anyway, to my discredit, I have had a "personal" distaste for many of your posts because it appeared to me that you were being outright rude and even childish with the use of (sic). This was, of course, when I did not understand the meaning. I admit that this is a reflection on my own personality. Now that I understand the meaning, I will not be offended in the future. A word of caution again though, others may still be. Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||