irresistible grace

[Raquel]

If God's grace is irresistible then why do we (all of humanity) resist on a daily basis?

[Carl Gobelman]

Phil James said:

I'm pretty sure I was abducted by aliens once...I'm sure you'll want evidence. Well, I have the best: I don't remember a thing.

You see, Aliens have these Ray Guns that wipe clean any recollection of abduction... and I don't remember ever (ever) being abducted.

Have you ever been Abducted? Careful ...

Funny! But far from being an example of Rey's irrefutable argument, it is actually self-refuting. If you don't remember a thing, then you wouldn't know that the aliens have memory erasing ray-guns would you?

[Ratatösk]

A theologian told me it was so!

[Rey Reynoso]

Yeah, Carl the friendly debate nature of these things is why I participate in them at this level. I know some other folk (who don't post as often) have already stamped be with double damnation so in those discussions I unfortunately give in to the flesh and let loose. Oh and I don't plan to convince you, brother: I'm hoping to convince the silent readers.

Search the Scriptures! Read in context! Know that man is knowingly Guilty and God's grace is freely available to all--He is Not double minded!

Now every argument won't necessarily devolve into circular reasoning. I mean, the cosmos by observation are so tremendous that it forces me to think of something Greater. Morality by its nature forces me to think of something Ultimately Moral. Now of course, this can be Yahweh, Thor or Dawson's Great Spaghetti Monster--in that case I would start looking at the evidence and see which has the most explanatory power.

Now the thing with the 5 points is that although it has a lot of explanatory power, that explanatory power is found only when you accept the system and then layer over the text. And then it does it to the detriment of what the text says.

For example Romans 9 is used but Romans 9 is about Israel. Well then what about Israel...well...how Israel came to be. Now of course it becomes a matter of interpretation of why Paul is looking at Israel coming to be but then that means the doctrine is based on one of a couple of interpretations.

Look at Ephesians 2, well what's it about? Well, its really pushing at the necessity of good works. But then why is Paul using the translation from spiritual deadness? Well, to show that we can now do good works effectively. Now here interpretation comes in and says "What was wrong in our spiritual deadness" and concludes "It must mean that we were unable to respond to God's call to do good works.

Blah blah...just me saying "It's narrow and unfounded while based on a tight interpretation and simultaneously covering its ears on all others."

Here's another bit of reasoning. If God is sovereign over every single detail and the Church has been dealing with this issue since before Augustine, isn't it possible that God didn't want a definitive answer and that there may be right in both answers? If that's the case, the 5-Pointer system is antithetical to that.

[Carl Gobelman]

Phil James said:

A theologian told me it was so!

A theologian said it, I believe it, that settles it?

Cool! :-)

[Carl Gobelman]

Here's another bit of reasoning. If God is sovereign over every single detail and the Church has been dealing with this issue since before Augustine, isn't it possible that God didn't want a definitive answer and that there may be right in both answers? If that's the case, the 5-Pointer system is antithetical to that.

Of course it's possible! Any theological system that attempts to explain away Biblical paradox (tension) would be anti-thetical to that, would it not? It seems to me theology is our attempt to grasp all the Biblical data and make some sense out of it. Some of it is pretty clear and leads to little debate. Some of it is not so clear and leads to debate. This is one of those issues. Calvinism or Arminianism, if both are pushed to logical extremes, do damage to the Biblical text.

I essentially adhere to a Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture, but I am not unaware of it's limitations and the questions it has a hard time answering.

Peace!
Carl

[James Gibbons]

Rey Reynoso said:

Yeah, Carl the friendly debate nature of these things is why I participate in them at this level. I know some other folk (who don't post as often) have already stamped be with double damnation so in those discussions I unfortunately give in to the flesh and let loose. Oh and I don't plan to convince you, brother: I'm hoping to convince the silent readers.

Search the Scriptures! Read in context! Know that man is knowingly Guilty and God's grace is freely available to all--He is Not double minded!

Now every argument won't necessarily devolve into circular reasoning. I mean, the cosmos by observation are so tremendous that it forces me to think of something Greater. Morality by its nature forces me to think of something Ultimately Moral. Now of course, this can be Yahweh, Thor or Dawson's Great Spaghetti Monster--in that case I would start looking at the evidence and see which has the most explanatory power.

Now the thing with the 5 points is that although it has a lot of explanatory power, that explanatory power is found only when you accept the system and then layer over the text. And then it does it to the detriment of what the text says.

For example Romans 9 is used but Romans 9 is about Israel. Well then what about Israel...well...how Israel came to be. Now of course it becomes a matter of interpretation of why Paul is looking at Israel coming to be but then that means the doctrine is based on one of a couple of interpretations.

Look at Ephesians 2, well what's it about? Well, its really pushing at the necessity of good works. But then why is Paul using the translation from spiritual deadness? Well, to show that we can now do good works effectively. Now here interpretation comes in and says "What was wrong in our spiritual deadness" and concludes "It must mean that we were unable to respond to God's call to do good works.

Blah blah...just me saying "It's narrow and unfounded while based on a tight interpretation and simultaneously covering its ears on all others."

Here's another bit of reasoning. If God is sovereign over every single detail and the Church has been dealing with this issue since before Augustine, isn't it possible that God didn't want a definitive answer and that there may be right in both answers? If that's the case, the 5-Pointer system is antithetical to that.

To quote Gooding, “Indeed.”

[James Gibbons]

Hey. Where’s Raquel. She can’t open this can of worms and then just walk away. Get back here, sister. Put on your gloves.

[Char]

I admit to the presupposition that if Christianity doesn't teach depravity it throws it into doubt. Honestly that's what convinced me of Christianity in the first place-this was the only view that actually admitted that people were the utter bags of of crap I found us to be in my experience. For me it's that or nihilism because man are we crap bags.

How does it work when you come up with the same interpretation without the grid? Arguments abound on NT texts, but I always felt the OT preached this more.

[James Gibbons]

Char said:

I admit to the presupposition that if Christianity doesn't teach depravity it throws it into doubt. Honestly that's what convinced me of Christianity in the first place-this was the only view that actually admitted that people were the utter bags of of crap I found us to be in my experience. For me it's that or nihilism because man are we crap bags.
How does it work when you come up with the same interpretation without the grid? Arguments abound on NT texts, but I always felt the OT preached this more.

Crapbags, yes. But dead crapbags, meaning crapbags incapable of hearing, understanding, and accepting an offer to be made perfect…free of charge? That’s what I don’t see. The blood of Christ is sufficient for the remission of all sin (+20 percent—trespass offering). It is offered to all. How cynical would it be to offer it to all, but then say, “but I’m making some of you incapable of receiving the offer.” That’s just not the God I know.

Crapbags! You crack me up, sister.

[Carl Gobelman]

Char said:

For me it's that or nihilism because man are we crap bags.

Or as they said in Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Ugly bags of mostly water." (Season #1, 1987).

[Carl Gobelman]

James Gibbons said:

Hey. Where’s Raquel. She can’t open this can of worms and then just walk away. Get back here, sister. Put on your gloves.

You noticed too? I was going to say something, but didn't want it taken out of context. I'm still relatively new to Theologica...

Raquel, we love ya! Come back!!!!

[Ratatösk]

Does crap bags really exhaust the possibilities?