Eternal Security
A dog may snatch a dog biscuit from a persons hand, but Christians with saving faith can be secure that no one can snatch them from their Heavenly Father’s hand.Praise God for his glorious grace which includes the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ and his promise of eternal security which Jesus affirmed in many passages such as the one above and (John 6:37-40). Jesus, in his high-priestly prayer, prayed to the father that eternal life would be given to all that the Father had given him …..For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him (John 17:2). In this passage Jesus is very clearly praying that 100% of those that are born again by the will of God will be saved, and it is inconceivable that the Father would not grant this request of Jesus. The other doctrines of grace, which are also clearly taught in Scripture, fit together with eternal security in a coherent system. These doctrines are laid out in sequence by Paul who said,….For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified (Romans 8:29-30). Notice that these verses are all about God taking action and accomplishing his will and not about man taking any action at all. They are not about God waiting and hoping that man will make the right decision and respond to God, but are all about God accomplishing everything in salvation. This is grace and it is mercy from God as Paul goes on to say…. It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (Romans 9:16). These doctrines of grace are God-centered in contrast to a man-centered view of salvation which hold that man can will and work himself in and back out of the Kingdom of God. Even a faith plus works view of salvation would still make works rather than faith in Christ the deciding factor. Paul said in (Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:20) that no one will be justified by their works. Paul points out that if righteousness could be gained by the law, Christ died for nothing (Galatians 2:21).
29 comments:
Jazzy–
I’ve never really understood the point of the doctrine of “eternal security” within the Calvinistic system. As is often quoted (and you have done so yourself in this post), the belief is that “no power” can snatch the believer from the hand of God.
Ok.
What I don’t get is why this is even a doctrine. After all, a consistent Calvinism will affirm that God has, from all of eternity, decreed everything that will come to pass, and that God has, by these decrees, determined from all of eternity who will be saved and damned. If it is true that everything which occurs does so because of the eternal decrees of God, then obviously if God wishes to save someone, they will be saved irrevocably and nothing can snatch them from God’s hand. But why this is a “comfort” is curious, for within the Calvinistic system, something could only “snatch” someone from the hand of God if, in fact, God decreed it to happen!
Therefore, because of Calvinism’s conception of God’s “sovereignty,” the only thing that the doctrine of eternal security tells us is that we can be sure that God will not change God’s mind about God’s intentions for the human and decide to damn them irrevocably. It is almost as if the “good side” of God is protecting us from the “bad side.” The doctrine of eternal security, then, only tells us that God will protect the believer...from Godself! Such, in my opinion, is a very curious form of “security”...
Exist...
I guess you make a good point in that God's sovereign election would make the concept of eternal security redundant.
Maybe it is just a way to directly confront and refute the doctrine that holds that one can have, but then lose their salvation. Eternal security would oppose that head on.
Also, you must consider that God's chosen method of saving sinners is not by notifying sinners that they are saved, but by sinners accepting the gift of eternal life by placing their faith and trust in Jesus. The offer is universal and there is no one turned away that does this. So, those that do not accept have no one to blame but themselves.
Jazzycat
jazzy--
Maybe it is just a way to directly confront and refute the doctrine that holds that one can have, but then lose their salvation. Eternal security would oppose that head on.
Maybe, although I know of very few theological systems that advocate that one can "lose" one's salvation.
Also, you must consider that God's chosen method of saving sinners is not by notifying sinners that they are saved, but by sinners accepting the gift of eternal life by placing their faith and trust in Jesus.
The word "accepting" seems to be a bit of a misnomer within a logical Calvinism, for God has actually eternally and irrevocably decreed that they will. Therefore, the "acceptance" is really more of an imputation, is it not? It is not based upon the "choice" of the individual (as the word "acceptance" would connotate), but rather upon the efficacy of God's sovereign fiat.
The offer is universal and there is no one turned away that does this.
?? The canons of Calvinistic thought clearly express that those who are "turned away" are so because God has eternally decreed that they should be damned and excluded from the love of God. How does such a scenario engender universality? If salvation and reprobation are based upon the divine and eternal decrees of God, how is the "offer" truly universal?
So, those that do not accept have no one to blame but themselves.
Well, as any blame that they would assign would be itself eternally decreed and determined by the counsel of God, I suppose this is technically accurate. However, from the perspective of one who is not a party within the economy which Calvinism describes, the assignment of blame can only properly alight upon the one who has eternally, efficaciously and exhaustively determined all that occurs.
Exist...
Maybe, although I know of very few theological systems that advocate that one can "lose" one's salvation.
There are some and the Roman Catholics hold to this concept (mortal sin).
The word "accepting" seems to be a bit of a misnomer within a logical Calvinism, for God has actually eternally and irrevocably decreed that they will. Therefore, the "acceptance" is really more of an imputation, is it not? It is not based upon the "choice" of the individual (as the word "acceptance" would connotate), but rather upon the efficacy of God's sovereign fiat.
It is based on the choice of the individual because after the Holy Spirit quickens, gives life, regenerates a person, that person responds willingly to faith in Jesus (John 6:37,44,65). It is not forced nor by imputation but rather by the new birth which God provides (John 3:3).
If salvation and reprobation are based upon the divine and eternal decrees of God, how is the "offer" truly universal?
Although the offer is universal, man, due to Adam's fall, fell to the point of being unable to respond in and of himself. Because man's sin in Adam rendered him unable, this does not make the offer invalid. But your point is well taken. Apart from God's free grace through spiritual rebirth, man will choose not to come on his own.
However, from the perspective of one who is not a party within the economy which Calvinism describes, the assignment of blame can only properly alight upon the one who has eternally, efficaciously and exhaustively determined all that occurs.
Ah, this is indeed tough for our minds to fathom. Why did God allow and indeed ordain evil? Under any system Cavinistic or otherwise, we can't escape the fact that God has ordained evil. I would certainly be interested in your explanation. However, I would not say allow/ordain translates to blame.
Jazzycat
jazzy--
There are some and the Roman Catholics hold to this concept (mortal sin).
Yes, RC's do believe in mortal sin. However, they do not advocate that one can "lose" salvation. Rather, the entire scope of mortal sin implies a willful rejection of the grace of God and the pursuit of one's own self-justification. We may be arguing semantics here, but there is no "losing"--it is outright rejection.
It is based on the choice of the individual because after the Holy Spirit quickens, gives life, regenerates a person, that person responds willingly to faith in Jesus (John 6:37,44,65). It is not forced nor by imputation but rather by the new birth which God provides (John 3:3).
But where is this "choice" of which you speak? If God has eternally ordained that you will be saved, there is no "choice" in this matter. Rather, it has been sealed from all of eternity; if you could "choose," you would be able to contradict the will of God (as Calvinists conceive of God's will). Therefore, there is no "choice" whatsoever; you are simply acting out that which God has eternally decreed that you would do.
Although the offer is universal, man, due to Adam's fall, fell to the point of being unable to respond in and of himself. Because man's sin in Adam rendered him unable, this does not make the offer invalid. But your point is well taken. Apart from God's free grace through spiritual rebirth, man will choose not to come on his own.
So, then, the offer is NOT universal after all, since God has decreed that not only would humans fall, but that a good slug of them would be damned from all of eternity, for all of eternity.
Ah, this is indeed tough for our minds to fathom. Why did God allow and indeed ordain evil?
I think that's the wrong question. I see no reason to conclude that God has ordained evil. Rather, the creation of this as a necessary conclusion proceeds, IMO, in a wrong conception of God to that which God has created.
Under any system Cavinistic or otherwise, we can't escape the fact that God has ordained evil.
I would completely disagree. If God has in fact "ordained" evil as Calvinism suggests, then there is no way in which to separate evil from God, for the fact that evil proceeds from God's ordaining will requires that evil is, in fact, inherent to God (for what part of the divine will is not necessary to the divine being?).
However, I would not say allow/ordain translates to blame.
If God alone has power, then God alone is to blame. If nothing transgresses the sovereign, exhaustively ordaining eternal will of God, then God's will is the necessary source and cause of all that occurs. If this is true, however, then all blame does rest with God.
Exist...
Therefore, there is no "choice" whatsoever; you are simply acting out that which God has eternally decreed that you would do.
That is the bottom line, but the person does it willingly.
So, then, the offer is NOT universal after all, since God has decreed that not only would humans fall, but that a good slug of them would be damned from all of eternity, for all of eternity.
I think ordained/allowed means a foreknowledge without an intent while decreed means an intent that is carried out. By giving a creature the free will to make decisions with the foreknowledge that evil will result and doing it with a plan of redemption is quite a bit different than being the first cause. The only cause God participated in was giving man a free will to choose. This is quite a bit different than causing him to commit evil.
If God has in fact "ordained" evil as Calvinism suggests, then there is no way in which to separate evil from God, for the fact that evil proceeds from God's ordaining will requires that evil is, in fact, inherent to God (for what part of the divine will is not necessary to the divine being?).
It is not Calvinism that suggests this. The Bible very clearly reveals that God has ordained all that comes to pass. We have to deal with it, but it does not mean God intentionally caused evil. Evil resulted from allowing a created being to have a free will. I do not know why he wanted to create creatures to have a will to choose freely. But he did and that is why blame is the wrong word. The fact that God knew man would fall of his own free will does not mean the blame is with God. He ordained it in that he allowed it to happen, but again he was not the first cause.
Jazzycat
jazzy--
That is the bottom line, but the person does it willingly.
I do not see that this is a philosophically tenable conclusion. After all, if one is compelled from all of eternity to do "x," then the fact that one does "x" is based upon the efficacy of God's will, not one's willingness to do "x." After all, "willingness" to do "x" requires a concomitant unwillingness to do everything but "x." However, if "x" is all that one can do because "x" has been eternally ordained, then the necessary corolary to willingness (unwillingness) is non-existent. But if unwillingness is non-existent, so too is willingness.
I think ordained/allowed means a foreknowledge without an intent while decreed means an intent that is carried out.
This is impossible in regards to God, for as the Calvinistic creeds clearly affirm, God has eternally decreed all that comes to pass based upon the counsel of God's will. Therefore, it is impossible, according to Calvinistic theology, that anything comes to pass without God "intending" it to come to pass. This, after all, is the fundamental tenant of Calvinistic theology.
By giving a creature the free will to make decisions with the foreknowledge that evil will result and doing it with a plan of redemption is quite a bit different than being the first cause. The only cause God participated in was giving man a free will to choose. This is quite a bit different than causing him to commit evil.
If you affirm the confessions of Calvinistic belief, there is no intellectually honest way in which you can differentiate between the two. After all, God has eternally decreed ALL that will come to pass. Nothing comes to pass, according to Calvinism, apart from God's will. And moreover, as God's will cannot be separated from God's being, it is necessary--if evil proceeds from the will of God--to also affirm that God, in nature, is evil. Not a pretty conclusion, obviously, but it is necessary if one affirms the canons of Calvinistic orthodoxy.
It is not Calvinism that suggests this. The Bible very clearly reveals that God has ordained all that comes to pass. We have to deal with it, but it does not mean God intentionally caused evil.
Again, if God has truly eternally decreed all that will come to pass, it is impossible that anything which comes to pass could be "unintentional." If one decrees the means and the ends, one is responsible for both. Therefore, it God has truly eternally decreed that evil should exist; and if all that God decrees proceeds from the will of God; and if God's will cannot be separated from God's being; then it is necessary that one affirm that God, in God's very nature, is evil. I don't see anyway around this unless one jettisons the fundamental assumptions of Calvinism about the "eternal decrees" of God.
Evil resulted from allowing a created being to have a free will. I do not know why he wanted to create creatures to have a will to choose freely. But he did and that is why blame is the wrong word. The fact that God knew man would fall of his own free will does not mean the blame is with God. He ordained it in that he allowed it to happen, but again he was not the first cause.
If God has eternally decreed that humans should fall, then there is no way in which to absolve God of responsibility for this fall, for by the very act of eternal decree, God has created and efficaciously brought to pass the content of that decree.
Exist…..
The doctrine of the sovereignty of God stands alone apart from Calvinism. I do not think any theological system based on Biblical theology can escape the conclusions as you draw them.
You point out that evil is necessarily traced back to the God of creation. Using your reasoning I would submit that any 'concept of the God of creation' would also necessarily trace evil back to him. No theological system including open theism would preclude evil being traced back to God in the manner that you frame the problem.
I contend that we do not have enough information in the form of Biblical revelation to ‘blame’ God for evil as you put it. I belief the reason, that God created man with the will to choose obedience or disobedience, is not divulged. We see through a glass darkly is the way the Bible puts it. Deut. 29:29 also addresses this point. Once we know this reason, perhaps we will understand that allowing evil into his creation is not as you frame it.
While your arguments make some good points, I would totally deny that they are unique to Calvinism even if they are correct.
Jazzycat
Jazzy--
The doctrine of the sovereignty of God stands alone apart from Calvinism. I do not think any theological system based on Biblical theology can escape the conclusions as you draw them.
I believe they can, for I see no need to view God's sovereignty in the materialist way that Calvinism does.
You point out that evil is necessarily traced back to the God of creation. Using your reasoning I would submit that any 'concept of the God of creation' would also necessarily trace evil back to him. No theological system including open theism would preclude evil being traced back to God in the manner that you frame the problem.
Open theism is really just Calvinisim taken to its logical conclusion--both operate under materialist assumptions about the nature of the relationship between God and that which God has created. I think, however, that there is an entirely philosophically tenable means by which to conceive of God as creator without locating the derivation of evil within the eternal will of God.
I contend that we do not have enough information in the form of Biblical revelation to ‘blame’ God for evil as you put it.
It is not on the basis of the biblical literature that I have formed this conclusion. Rather, my conclusion is based upon Calvinism's interpretation of Scripture.
I belief the reason, that God created man with the will to choose obedience or disobedience, is not divulged. We see through a glass darkly is the way the Bible puts it. Deut. 29:29 also addresses this point. Once we know this reason, perhaps we will understand that allowing evil into his creation is not as you frame it.
As I have said before, I do not see how you can honestly speak about the concept of divine "allowance" if you hold to the tenants of Calvinistic orthodoxy. After all, if God has eternally, efficaciously, and exhaustively ordained that which will be in all manners and forms, there is no room for "allowance," for all that occurs comes about because of the enacting of the divine will, not the freedom of that which God has created.
E~D, Calvinist orthodoxy as defined by whom?
Many of us Calvinists come to calvinism by plain reading of the Bible. A friend of mine introduced me to Calvinism merely by inviting me to read Romans 8-9, and telling me to ask myself to ask to Whom Paul was speaking in these chapters. From that moment calvinism made perfect sense. That was 1978 and I have yet to even open the cover on any of Calvin's works.
Calvinism is no monolith. Not even Calvin can be said to speak for all calvinists. There are Peado- baptist calvinists and credo- baptist calvinists. There are calvinists that adhere to Dispensationalism, some to Covenant Theology, and some to New Covenant Theology. There are pre-mill, post-mill, and a-mill calvinists. There are calvinists that don't believe in evangelizing the lost and those who give their lives doing so.
In short, you have no handle on calvinism by reading one author.
bluecollar--
E~D, Calvinist orthodoxy as defined by whom?
Many of us Calvinists come to calvinism by plain reading of the Bible. A friend of mine introduced me to Calvinism merely by inviting me to read Romans 8-9, and telling me to ask myself to ask to Whom Paul was speaking in these chapters. From that moment calvinism made perfect sense. That was 1978 and I have yet to even open the cover on any of Calvin's works.
Calvinism is no monolith. Not even Calvin can be said to speak for all calvinists. There are Peado- baptist calvinists and credo- baptist calvinists. There are calvinists that adhere to Dispensationalism, some to Covenant Theology, and some to New Covenant Theology. There are pre-mill, post-mill, and a-mill calvinists. There are calvinists that don't believe in evangelizing the lost and those who give their lives doing so.
In short, you have no handle on calvinism by reading one author.
I agree that Calvinism cannot be defined by any one author. However, I am only repeating and commenting upon the "Confessions" which explicitly defines the tenets of Calvnistic orthodoxy, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is this brand of Calvinism (which, IMO is the only form of it that approaches consistency) to which I am responding.
Exist...
Would you make your view of God clearer by explaining what your view is on God and his connection/relationship with the known universe? In short how do you separate God from the evil that you claim traditional Biblical systems cannot do? You keep calling it Calvinism, but it is really any reasonalble system derived from Biblical revelation that your assertions cover.
Jazzycat
Exist~Dissolve,
Thank you for the gracious way that you handle yourself.
I do not have my copy of the "Westminster Confessions" with me right now, but I do believe that they were of a Covenant Theology bent, and would have no respect for my New Covenant Theology bent; nor would they appreciate my A-mill leanings. So if you were to try to guess where the bluecollar stood on many issues,(like that's a priority on anybody's to-do list) using that confession would not be a good source.
My hero would be C.H.Spurgeon. He angered many calvinists by his zeal to win the lost to Christ. To many calvinists in his day he was an Arminnian. In fact, even today he does not show up on many lists of people's favorite Calvinists. He refused to let his calvinism drive his exegesis and expounding of passages of scripture. He expounded each passage in its context, and let the verse speak for itself. On the otherhand, other calvinists of his time let there doctrinal presuppositions drive their expossition of scripture.
You may be surprised, by interacting with individual calvinists, to see just how diverse calvinism really is. Even that statement by me would get me in trouble. Oops, now I'm going to get kicked out of the ranks of calvinism... Was I ever there to begin with... So many questions.
I just know that if God had not elected and called me, I would have gone on loving my sin and hating Him. If God the Holy Spirit had not separated me from the world and unto Christ I would have gone on to experience the coming wrath of God. If God the Father had not made me alive together with His Son, then I would still be dead in trespasses and sins.
jazzy--
Would you make your view of God clearer by explaining what your view is on God and his connection/relationship with the known universe? In short how do you separate God from the evil that you claim traditional Biblical systems cannot do? You keep calling it Calvinism, but it is really any reasonalble system derived from Biblical revelation that your assertions cover.
I see God's relationship with the created order as an "I/thou" relationship. That which is created is "other than" God, i.e., it is not a part of God, it is not an "emanation" of the divine being, etc. Rather, creation exists, in a sense, "over and against" God in the sense of being "other" (not in consideration of "power"). Because of this "I/thou" relationship, we cannot think of God's sovereignty in creation in a materialist sense, that is, as if God's sovereignty can be identified in the causal outworkings of that which occurs in space/time. If sovereignty (or God's relationship, for that matter) within the created order was qualified by such, we would be left with the prior, rejected conclusions that the created order is merely a part or emanation of God.
While this might seem to be an odd suggestion at first, I think it makes sense in light of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is a crisis for both the divine person and the created order, for in the Incarnation other is united to other. The uncreated Creator is made created in the person of Christ, and that which is "other" to the divine is made proper to the divine nature.
How this coheres with my claims about the ability to bifurcate the divine nature from evil now becomes more self-apparent. After all, if that which is created exists in relationship to God as "other," there is a freedom in being other that disconnects God from the origin of evil (for evil is created in a fracturing of a proper relationship between God and that which God has created). Interestingly enough, I think this point is proven in the fact that Incarnation is the means by which God deals with sin. Because creation exists as "other" to God; and because sin and evil arise out of the freedom of the other; God enters into the life of the other through incarnation in order to restore the relationship that was originally created to exist. There is a sense, then, in which this order cannot be restored by mere divine, sovereign fiat. Rather, sin and evil are destroyed, counterintuitively enough, through weakness, by God in Jesus as the divine enters into the life of the created and the creation is taken up into the divine.
bluecollar--
Thank you for the honest description of your theological orientation.
Let me ask you this, however, If you would not identify yourself with the "confessionalism" of Calvinistic theology, yet would still call yourself a Calvinist, in what way would you describe the Calvinism to which you subscribe?
Exist...
I think your view that God is a source of evil under Calvinism is not corrected by this theological system of 'wholly other.'
If this system has God as the creator of the universe, and evil results from the creation, how does being 'other than' the creation somehow insulate him from the cause anymore than your view of Calvinism?
Are you saying God caused the big bang and just stood back and watched the results unfold? Even this would not solve the problem that you say Calvinism has in my view. Also, I won't even mention how unbiblical such a view would be.
Jazzycat
jazzy--
I think your view that God is a source of evil under Calvinism is not corrected by this theological system of 'wholly other.' If this system has God as the creator of the universe, and evil results from the creation, how does being 'other than' the creation somehow insulate him from the cause anymore than your view of Calvinism?
One of the benefits of this system is that it places the power and potential for evil within the power-relationship which the creation has in its metaphorical "over-and-against" relationship with God. In this sense, evil arises from the determination of the creation to exist in improper relationship with God, rather than arising from divine fiat (which is necessary if one holds to a deterministic conception of God's sovereignty). As the manifestation of a relational dysfunction, evil is not a "thing" that has essential existence, but is rather an act of anti-creation.
Are you saying God caused the big bang and just stood back and watched the results unfold?
No, for attributing the relationship of God within creation to "causality" would completely undermine the anti-materialist conception of God's sovereignty which I have been advocating.
With that being said, I do believe that big-bang cosmology gives us a the most reasonable and, to date, accurate picture of the early history of the universe.
Even this would not solve the problem that you say Calvinism has in my view. Also, I won't even mention how unbiblical such a view would be.
I agree that Deism (which is really just a rephrasing of Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover") is unbiblical. I fully affirm that God is infinitely present in the creation (past, present and future) of space/time. However, I will not reduce this presence to causality. Such would be to quantify God according to the parameters of scientific methodology which is really idolatry.
E~D,
At the risk of sounding individualist, I would say that my positions are currently under reconstruction. The New Covenant Theology that I am close to embracing is challenging all confessionals to stand back and see just how Biblical their confessions are. The chief proponants of NCT are asking all confessionals to rely more on sound exigesis rather than on confessions-a radicle move.
Exist...
You seem to be saying that God was anti-materialisticly sovereignly involved in the creation of the universe but was not the cause.
What does that mean and what Biblical passages do you use to support your thinking?
Jazzy
Mr. Bluecollar,
I also have some problems with covenant theology but I know very little about the NCT at this point.
Maybe you could do NCT overview at your site to help me understand it better. Although, I am enjoying the Spurgeon posts.
Jazzycat
Jazzycat: On my blogroll you will see in the last half of it many links to NCT sites-from Wikipedia's definition and so on.
I am thinking of how to introduce NCT on my blog. My hands have carpel tunnel and typing is very unpleasant. I will work it out somehow, in time.
jazzy--
You seem to be saying that God was anti-materialisticly sovereignly involved in the creation of the universe but was not the cause.
What does that mean
It is difficult to explain, for human language is, by default, materialist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about the involvement of God in space/time without it.
However, this is how I would explain it, or at least move in the direction of explaining it:
God is the source of all that exists. In this sense, creation is dependent upon the creative activity of God, not only in derivation but in preservation. When I say that God is not the "cause" of creation, I am using the word in a very technical sense. This does not mean that creation does not have its origin in God, nor that creation is independent of God (in an absolute sense) and eternal. I only disavow the word "cause" because causality is referential to the parameters of space/time. Therefore, if God is spoken of as "cause," either God's action is limited to the parameters of space/time or, as Aristotle believed, the interaction between God and creation occurs on the level of eternality--that is, God "moves" matter that is consubstantial in eternality with God (both are eternal, but God is bigger). Obviously, both of these views are deficient, so that is why I disavow the notion of God as the "cause" of creation.
While eliminating the notion of causality in relation to God's creative activity certainly limits the ways in which we are able to speak of the relationship between God's creative activity and that which occurs in creation on a mechanistic level, it also expands the ways in which we are able to speak of God in relationship to creation, for God is no longer limited to the range of causality. By jettisoning the imperative of causality and adopting a more robust conception of God's creative relationship to the creation, all the "controversy" about origins that currently exists between "science" and "faith" dissolve, for belief in God's creative activity within space/time is no longer limited to the parameters of scientific inquiry.
and what Biblical passages do you use to support your thinking?
I think this conception is based upon the Scriptures affirmations of God as uncreated, eternal creator of all that is. I think the conclusions which I have provided above are natural from the beginning premises offered in Scripture.
bluecollar--
At the risk of sounding individualist, I would say that my positions are currently under reconstruction. The New Covenant Theology that I am close to embracing is challenging all confessionals to stand back and see just how Biblical their confessions are. The chief proponants of NCT are asking all confessionals to rely more on sound exigesis rather than on confessions-a radicle move.
Interesting. I look forward to seeing the conclusions you reach.
E~D--
Thanks for interacting with me
Exist....
You said...
God "moves" matter that is consubstantial in eternality with God (both are eternal, but God is bigger).
I deny that matter has the power of self-existence, which would be necessary for your statement to be true.
I also see a huge problem with you wanting to separate God from causality when the Biblical record is full of God being involved and causing many things to happen throughout history.
Speculation about things outside of time and space is pretty iffy, even if it is very interesting. I am very interested in your views, but I have almost no philosophical training. My favorite theologian R.C. Sproul has extensive philosophy training and I really enjoy listening to him discuss these things on his radio show that I get over the internet.
Jazzycat
jazzy--
I deny that matter has the power of self-existence, which would be necessary for your statement to be true.
Agreed. I am glad you deny this proposition.
I also see a huge problem with you wanting to separate God from causality when the Biblical record is full of God being involved and causing many things to happen throughout history.
I fully affirm the creative involvement of God within creation. Moreover, I do not necessarily think that God is uninvolved in causality entirely. All I am saying is that we must avoid reducing our language about the relationship of God in history to that of causality.
jazzy--
I deny that matter has the power of self-existence, which would be necessary for your statement to be true.
Agreed. I am glad you deny this proposition.
I also see a huge problem with you wanting to separate God from causality when the Biblical record is full of God being involved and causing many things to happen throughout history.
I fully affirm the creative involvement of God within creation. Moreover, I do not necessarily think that God is uninvolved in causality entirely. All I am saying is that we must avoid reducing our language about the relationship of God in history to that of causality.
Exist...
You said,
All I am saying is that we must avoid reducing our language about the relationship of God in history to that of causality.
I agree that God accomplishes his set purposes through even the evil that freely comes from the will of man. Joseph and Judas are examples.
It is an incorrect view of sovereignty and providence, that holds that God causes men to continually act as they do. Chapter 5 of the Westminster Confession covers providence. In 5.3 it says... "God in His ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them at His pleasure."
Jazzycat
Post a Comment