NOTE: update added at the end of this post!
In the comments under this post, Christine asked "I wonder what you think of this post by Triablogue:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/04/all-is-adjective.html
I am always glad to remember that you are not a Calvinist, right?"
Me: Yes, you're right I'm not a Calvinist. I don't know if I'm an Arminian; I don't think so.
I think the author makes sense when he says the 'you' is what is being referred to by 'all' in that passage. But one verse doesn't make a doctrine. I think Calvinism is too cut-and-dried. There are too many things we don't and can't understand about this subject. I do believe the Bible teaches election and predestination, but I don't think we understand what it really means. There are too many pieces missing, and either God doesn't want us to understand it yet, or our unbelief prevents it. We tend to pick and choose and believe only the parts we want to.
Christine: Wow, I am totally confused by that answer, but thanks for the response.
Me: If you're confused because I agreed with the author of the blog post: just because that one verse seems to say that God is longsuffering toward us (or you) and is not willing that any of YOU should perish doesn't mean that God [wants] everyone else to perish. There are other passages that seem to say God doesn't want anyone to perish. Ezekiel 33:11 says: Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’
And reading the whole chapter of 2 Peter 3, I's not clear that the 'you' only refers to believers, anyway. I don't know why Calvinists seem to have to stress so much that God doesn't want everyone to be saved. What's the point?
Me: In other words, even if I concede them their point here, it doesn't mean anything, because of the magnitude of the many scriptures that stress God's longsuffering and mercy and love toward the whole world.
Christine: OK, that helps. I'm wondering then, in what way do you believe in election and predestination? Just that God is able to foresee (of course) but does not foreordain, so that we can make truly free choices?
Me: That's a difficult question, but I'll try to answer it as soon as I can.
So, here goes. I'm going to just throw out some ideas and links here to help with this, because I myself always have to go back and study it again, since there is so much info. that I can't keep it straight.
One thing that occurs to me is that, for example, in 2 Peter 3:9, the passage used in the Triablogue article: Did God plan the Bible so that an unsaved person can read it and know that God is talking to him/her? The passage says God "is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." If someone reads this and thinks it is written for them, are they wrong? Should we tell them that is only written for believers? That would be terribly presumptuous, to say that God can't speak to whomever He wills through His word.
Following are some helpful web pages from my husband Eddie's Bible study website in which he discusses predestination and Calvinism. I agree with my husband on this issue, and also firmly believe that we should stick strictly to what Scripture DOES say, and not 'crystalize' our own extrapolations or conclusions as firm doctrine. There are many scriptures that contradict Calvinism.
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/predestination/calvinism1.html
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination2.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination3.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/christianity/UnderstandingPredestination4.htm
I remember that in some of my earlier posts on Calvinism I've said that I think Calvinism is a 'false gospel' or 'false doctrine'. I've said that Calvinism takes doctrines from Scripture and then draws conclusions that contradict other scriptures,'crystalizing' things that should be left uncertain. I believe many Calvinists are believers. I also believe many Arminians are believers, and many Roman Catholics are believers, and many Methodists are believers, etc.. In other words, we know that many people that think they're saved, aren't saved, in all groups of Christians; but many are truly saved.
Even though we may look at certain groups or doctrines as 'heretical', the people in them can still be our brothers and sisters, and we need to love each one as such, and not condemn them. None of us is right about everything. There is a right doctrine that we all should strive to be united under, which is the Truth of Scripture. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to think we're right and others are wrong, that's all, like Paul talked of in 1 Corinthians 1-3. Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
So, should people even be calling themselves 'Calvinsists' then, or sticking so exclusively to one man's doctrines? Are there not passages of Scripture that contradict Calvinist tenets, and should we work so hard to explain these passages away? I think there is something beyond all the seeming contradictions (which Arminians and Calvinists constantly argue over, so it can't be denied that they exist) which we can't understand outside of the commandment to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbor as ourselves.
All through Church history brothers have hated brothers for doctrinal differences, ignoring this greatest commandment. Being my father's daughter, and my husband's wife, I understand how important correct doctrine is, but love is the greatest doctrine for believers to remember. Not the slushy kind of love that ignores error, but the kind that doesn't puff itself up and push others down as 'heretics'. It's very hard to find that balance between Truth and Love, as history shows. I struggle with that balance in myself constantly. Another famous passage farther along in 1 Corinthians sums it up: And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
UPDATE:
Christine, I looked back at the comments again and realized I hadn't answered all your questions, except to say I agreed with my husband's teachings in the articles I referenced above. Your question was "I'm wondering then, in what way do you believe in election and predestination? Just that God is able to foresee (of course) but does not foreordain, so that we can make truly free choices?"
You also said: "It seems to me that Calvinists believe in election such that some people are destined for heaven aside from their choices, and some are destined not to go to heaven and therefore deprived of the choice."
I do believe God is able to foresee, and that He does foreordain many things. I also believe we can make truly free choices to accept or reject salvation; to obey or not obey; to sin or not to sin. I think it's possible that God has foreordained some things, like Judas's betrayal, and Paul's commission as Apostle; but that everyone's future is not set in stone. My husband explained his view, that we are predestined to walk in good works, but that we can choose not to walk in that planned path. Maybe each person's path is planned, but some choose not to accept God's gift, and so God's best plan doesn't come to pass for them. It's an idea.
In Romans 9 and 10, which speaks of predestination, it seems to be speaking of God's plan for Israel and for the salvation of the Gentiles. It may point more towards the church as a whole being saved because of Israel's rejection. Israel will be grafted in again later, though they were cut off for disobedience. I think that's in Romans 11. I don't think this subject will ever be settled, but I don't see the point of saying it's God's will for most people who ever lived to be sent to hell forever. I don't think that's true, nor do I believe that's what is going to happen. Even Charles Spurgeon believed or hoped that there would be more in heaven than in hell. I hope so too. In 1 Corinthians 15 it says "For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." and "“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”"
I don't believe eternal death will claim the majority of people, though I do believe in judgment. I don't know if we understand correctly how long hell will last, or how many will be there. A thousand years or two of torment would certainly be fearful and horrible enough. There were Fathers that believed in Annihilation, and Fathers that believed in ages of torment, and Fathers that believed God would make us forget those in hell, so we wouldn't weep for them anymore. There are still people today who believe those different things. I don't know which is true. I hope for the best.
12 comments:
I commented on the triloblog post to the effect that the Greek lexicon says "all" (πᾶς) is an adjective but in English, "all" may be a pronoun, for example. So I wonder how that affects the analysis.
Then again, the Greek lexicon says that πᾶς can mean "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything," as well as "some of all types."
It's so clearly a product of its time. This revival is a swan song.
You're right, I'm not sure if the 'all' would be a pronoun or an adjective. I don't know how that would change the meaning. We need someone familiar with Greek.
The point of the chapter is that, while people say 'God promised He would come, and after all these centuries, where is He?', God looks at a thousand years as a day and His idea of 'slowness' is alot different than ours. So, God is patient to wait all these years for all to come who will come. Whosoever will.
Thanks for your thoughts. Been really busy, but want to check out Eddie's posts.
The other thing I would say about language and translation is somewhat related to these, what we might call in English, "collective pronouns":
The Roman Catholic liturgy is changing come Advent 2011. One of the many changes is in the consecration during the eucharistic prayer, in all its various forms. The previous wording, what the priest currently says, goes like this, speaking of the blood of the covenant:
"It will be shed for you and for all ..."
Soon, the priest will say this:
"poured out for you and for many ..."
Say, isn't this how the verse is translated in our Bibles? πολύς, "many, much, large." Does not sound universal, does it? Maybe the Catholic liturgy has been wrong since 1973 and is receiving a theological correction?
But no, not according to the eminent Jesuit biblical scholar Max Zerwick whose indispensable grammatical analysis book even Protestant seminarians rely on. He wrote, "The Semitic mind of the Bible could see that universality connoted in the phrase 'for many.'" And Barbara Reid said in her commentary on Matthew that "for many" is the Semitic opposite of "for one."
If Jesus taught at the Last Supper that his death is for all, Peter would have continued the corollary teaching in his epistles that God wants everyone saved.
Moonshadow - I agree with you about "all" - but I wonder why we are going back to "many" in the liturgy if the connotation is "all", and in the American or
English-speaking mind, "many" implies some are excluded. I am all for making our liturgy more accurate, though.
Jennie, in reading Eddie's first commentary, I see that he resolves the seeming contradiction in scripture between monergism and synergism by saying that in our "letting go", we are not taking an action or choice of our own, thus retaining monergism while rejecting Calvinism. He says that we are never asked in scripture to "conform our will to God" but to "submit" our will. I don't object to that concept, and it is an interesting resolution, but I have to say that "letting go" is a choice and an action on our part, and a very difficult one at times. Good food for thought, however. I know the Catholic Church also refers to the "elect" at times, as Scripture does, but yet rejects the idea that God wills any to perish.
I apologize for this non-sequitur, but an interesting women's blog is deeperstory.com (Tales of Christ and Culture)
Teresa, like Christine I'm also wondering why the liturgy is being changed in that way. I'm curious to see what the explanation will be.
Christine,
you said: Jennie, in reading Eddie's first commentary, I see that he resolves the seeming contradiction in scripture between monergism and synergism by saying that in our "letting go", we are not taking an action or choice of our own, thus retaining monergism while rejecting Calvinism. He says that we are never asked in scripture to "conform our will to God" but to "submit" our will. I don't object to that concept, and it is an interesting resolution, but I have to say that "letting go" is a choice and an action on our part, and a very difficult one at times.
There is a misunderstanding among some Christians about the difference between 'works' and 'actions'. First of all, we are meant to do good works, not to save ourselves, but because we are saved. We must do them as a result of regeneration. If not, then we are working for ourselves and not for God.
Secondly, submission to God, which is also called 'obedience to the gospel' is not a work, though it is an action. Bowing to God and laying down our burdens is the opposite of work. It is 'letting go' of our own works and our sins. Working for our own salvation instead of submitting to Christ is disobedience to the gospel. After we are saved by faith and made new creations in Christ, then we are free to work for God instead of to save ourselves.
Jennie said: Teresa, like Christine I'm also wondering why the liturgy is being changed in that way. I'm curious to see what the explanation will be.
I thought I had explained it. Sigh.
"Many" is a Semitism for "all," the opposite of "one." Don't forget, "you" remains, "shed/poured out for YOU." That's everyone present: you & you & you & you & you!
Triablogue has probably understood Mark 10:45, 14:24 and Matthew 20:28, 26:28 in limited terms and transferred that understanding to Peter's teaching in 2 Peter 3:9. Two wrongs don't make a right: Jesus didn't teach limited atonement, so Peter wouldn't have either.
But I see that I'm now off-topic, so I'll apologize for beating a dead horse.
Peace.
I thought I had explained it. Sigh.
"Many" is a Semitism for "all," the opposite of "one." Don't forget, "you" remains, "shed/poured out for YOU." That's everyone present: you & you & you & you & you!
I saw the explanation given by the people you cited above, but is that the official explanation, and do the general members understand why the change is being made?
And I don't think you're off topic, anyway. Since when do I worry about that :)
Moonshadow - your last comment was helpful to me, thanks.
Here's a snapshot of the monergism/synergism thing that I found on a website:
A simple analogy to explain the difference among monergism and synergism
In the analogy we have three persons, let’s call them John, Jim and Theo. John and Jim represent all men – John represent those will go to heaven, which in this analogy is represented by going to the concert, of which a ticket, representing salvation, is required. Jim represents those who do not go to heaven while Theo represents God.
Monergism - John and Jim are not aware of the concert – they even cannot afford to buy ticket no matter how hard they work. Theo decided to send free ticket to John. John found the ticket inside his mail box – it made him interested in the concert and therefore he goes to the concert. Jim did not receive free ticket – he cannot go to the concert and remains unaware of the concert.
Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who follow Calvinism or Reformed theology are monergists.
Synergism
John and Jim are not aware of the concert – they even cannot afford to buy ticket no matter how hard they work. Theo took the initiative – he offered free tickets to both John and Jim. John said he wanted to go to the concert and accepted the offer. Jim, on the other hand, said he is not interested in the concert and declined the offer.
Catholics, Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who follow Arminianism are synergists
Christine,
I think that's a pretty good analogy. One thing it leaves out is the word of God which illuminates the heart, and the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the blind to see and accept the word of God. Without that we CAN'T choose to accept God's gift.
Post a Comment