Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19000 | ||
Tim: Here we are again! I REALLY tried this time to keep out of the "5 points" discussion, but every time I try to get out, they pull me back in! :) In the Reformed position, there is a certain sense in which we were saved 2000 years ago at Calvary, for that is when the debt was paid for our sins: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." --Romans 5:8 In addition, regeneration (rebirth) logically precedes faith in the Reformed view, since our spirits must be made alive in order for us to stop rejecting the gospel. Temporally speaking, they are simulatneous; that is, we place our trust in Christ at the same time that we are spitirually regenerated. The question is which is the "domino that knocks the other one over." The Reformed position states that God is the unilateral cause of us placing our faith in His Son: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," --1 Peter 1:3 Now we know Ephesians 2:8-9. In my perspective, this is the expanded, full version of the evangelical idea "justification by faith." We are saved BY God's grace THOUGH faith in Christ alone. All of this is the gift of God. So grace is from God, and faith is a gift from God that we ourselves place in Christ. Therefore, I hold that our justification was planned in eternity past, secured in 1st-century Judea, and applied to us (made manifest) when we were regenrated by the Holy Spirit of God, placing faith in Christ. The tricky thing, Tim, is when we start talking about an aspect of God which you often have brought up: his timelessness. If we ask, "When does God consider us righteous?" we have a hard time answering that. Those who were God's people before Christ's arrival, were they viewed as righteous despite the fact that Christ had not actually atoned for our sins in time and space? (Paul and James seem to indicate that Abraham was.) In our cases, we know that we are "positionally" righteous with God, even though practically speaking we are painfully far away from that as a reality. We also probably agree that while we are justified, God also disciplines us and does indeed see our daily sins against Him. By that I mean that our sinful actions are not "ignored" by God or "invisible" to Him as I hear too many Christians implying; He does indeed care how we live out our Christian lives. So from the perspective of a timeless God, it could be said in a certain sense that outside of time/space, we stand as justified; just as the time/space event of our conversion did not (in an eternal sense) move us out of the unjustified category to the justified one. On the human side of things, justification was made manifest in my life a hanful of years ago. In a historical sense it occurred at Golgotha. From an eternal perspective, God has never counted my sins against me. How is that for an answer? My head is spinning now. I think I need to stop. Happens every time when finite me tries to grasp the infinite. One last point: I do not hold your third option as an alternative, since it still comes to the same conclusion: Christ paid for the sins of those who will be paying for them themselves. And if we are talking about what the most just situation is, we all go to Hell. The Reformed view is not injustice vs. justice; it is mercy vs. justice. The only difference is that we hold that God is not required to show mercy to all (and the Bible clearly shows that He doesn't in the lives of many many individuals and nations). Eagerly awaiting your response! --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Morant61 | 19011 | ||
Greetings Joe! I really wasn't trying to start another big debate on this issue! :-) I actually was just curious about your position on the logical order of events. I only own a couple of theology books from a calvinistic or reformed position. The more heavily reformed one doesn't go into a lot of detail on the issue. The more moderate calvinist one (Erickson's, Christian Theology), is the source I used for my post. In it, he lists the order as Effectual calling, Conversion, then Regeneration. Thanks for the detailed response! One more quick question: If I understood your postion correctly, would it be fair to say that you hold to Supralapsarianism when it comes to the logical order of decrees? Concerning the third alternative, I can understand that from your perspective it is not a valid option. I only listed it though to highlight the fact that there other other perspectives. From my theological perspective, individual salvation is not decreed. Therefore, the third option would be valid in that there is both an objective and a subjective element to our salvation. God purchased the gift on the cross (objective), but the gift must be accepted by faith (subjective). Talk to you later my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19018 | ||
Tim: I am not supralapsarian. For those reading who aren't familiar with this term, supralapsarianism holds that: 1. God, out of his own wise counsel, elected a specific group of individuals to eternal life, not based on any merit or inherent superiority of those individuals (Ephesians 1:11 -- a view held by all who called themselves Reformed) 2. God out of His own wise counsel, elected the rest of humanity to reprobation (i.e. Hell), before taking into account the Fall. In other words, God is ACTIVE in keeping the non-elect out of Heaven. I do not hold to supralapsarianism, because the main idea behind it is that men are damned based on God's wise counsel rather than on their inherent sinfulness. Humans do not go to Hell because God didn't choose them. Humans go to Hell because they are by nature children of wrath who rebel against a holy God. Therefore, I lean toward infralapsarianism, which holds that our condemnation was justly earned by humanity (although foreknown and permitted by God), while salvation is for those whom he chose to rescue out of the position that we were in. The "default position" is condemnation for all of us; God just "flicks the switch" on the elect to salvation (to put it very crudely). --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Morant61 | 19022 | ||
Greetings Joe! Thanks for the clarification! I guess my view would be closer to a modified 'Sublapsarianism.' Again, for those who are not familiar with this term, it says that God's decrees were made in the following order: 1) The decree to create human beings. 2) The decree to permit the fall. 3) The decree to provide salvation sufficent for all. 4) The decree to save some and reprobate others. Of course, I would modify 4) to say something like: 4) The decree to elect those who respond it faith. I am not conviced of the value of these terms, since they can only be implied from Scripture. However, they are helpful in terms of understanding a person's worldview. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19024 | ||
Tim: Sounds about as classically Arminian as you can get! Phil Johnson of Grace to You (John MacArthur's ministry) casts Arminianism in almost exactly the same terms that you do, but he defines my view as "sublapsarianism," making it synonymous with infralapsarianism. I would encourage everyone on the forum to read an article by him to see where they stand on this whole issue. Even though he seems to share my position, he is very fair in categorizing the different views. To get this link, you will have to replace the [TILDE] in the address with the little sqiggly thing that often goes over the "n" in Spanish. Silly studybibleforum.com won't let us type it in our text: http://www.gty.org/[TILDE]phil/articles/sup_infr.htm Thanks again for making me think! --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Morant61 | 19039 | ||
Greetings Joe! Intresting site! I was surprised once to find that Hank Hanagraaf held to a view similar to mine. I haven't checked out his web site about it, but I did hear it on his radio program once. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||