|
Post by selah on Jun 6, 2006 23:43:36 GMT -5
Forgiving someone else is a gift of liberty I give myself. Yes, by all means, if I have something against someone who has died, I NEED to forgive that person. It's about me not them. It's about releasing the bitterness I'm holding onto. If I hold on too long, it will take root.
That person will never know the difference, but I sure will. Hiding unforgiveness in my heart is a sin, and interferes with my communion with God.
Forgiveness is a choice. It's a decision. Sometimes we want to wait until we "feel" that we've forgiven someone. That's not a good idea, because it may take too long, and a root of bitterness may take hold. Forgiveness, Love, Believing and Hope...all of these are choices. The "feelings" may follow, but we shouldn't waste any time making the decisions to forgive, love, believe and hope.
One other misconception about forgiveness is that we must continue to leave ourselves in a vulnerable postion once we've forgiven. If someone repeatedly violates what we hold dear, we can forgive over and over again, but we needn't resign ourselves to being permanent victims. Boundaries are important. Drawing boundaries doesn't mean we're unforgiving. It means we are being responsible.
Forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean to trust again. It just means we choose to release the burden of ill-will toward another. If those feelings begin to resurface, we must choose to CONTINUE to walk in forgiveness...just as we must continue to walk in faith when doubts surface...or we continue to hope, when things seem hopeless...and we continue to love when there's temptation to do otherwise.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 7, 2006 5:04:27 GMT -5
Karl: What all does the "snippet" include? Are you including the term DOUBLE PREDESTINATION as something Calvin said and used to support his position? That's all I'm asking, but I'm not getting an clear answer on this;therefore I will not answer your question. When you have answered my need for clarification of your original question, I will answer you.
Thanks!
Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on Jun 7, 2006 6:30:52 GMT -5
This: John Calvin: On Double Predestination
In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them.
Source:
From John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2006 6:35:17 GMT -5
Karl,
I believe Jessi is asking if Calvin explicitly uses the phrase "double predestination". While you and I would agree that the excerpts from Calvin delineate the concept, Jessi is asking does Calvin actually use the phrase as such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2006 6:47:22 GMT -5
Karl: What all does the "snippet" include? Are you including the term DOUBLE PREDESTINATION as something Calvin said and used to support his position? That's all I'm asking, but I'm not getting an clear answer on this;therefore I will not answer your question. When you have answered my need for clarification of your original question, I will answer you. Thanks! Christ's, Jessi He didn't use that term, but that is what the idea expressed in Institutes is commonly called. That's why I used it, to give a common point of reference. I do not believe that God actively predestines people to damnation. Karl
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2006 7:06:23 GMT -5
Karl,
And there again you will find a definitional problem. Only hyper-Calvinists believe that God actively predestines people to salvation.
Calvinism as followed up by many Reformed thinkers would agree that in Double Predestination God is not actively predestining the reprobate to damnation. That is to say God is believed to actively predestine some to salvation, but by a different operation those He passes over are reprobated by their own will and actions just as the elect would be reprobated by their own will and actions had He not chosen to elect them.
ie. All are worthy by their own will and actions to be condemned yet God graciously elects some to salvation based on His own good will and not in accordance with any foreseen merit in those persons and those He passes over are not actively predestined to condemnation but will merely receive the fitting end for what they have willed and acted upon.
Allegedly the non-Calvinist error in trying to understand Calvinist thinking is that God predestines to damnation by the same operation that He predestines to salvation. Calvinists stridently deny this "misrepresentation" of Calvinism.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2006 7:46:34 GMT -5
Apparently what I write is often incomprehensible to readers. For the benefit of those who might be interested in the discussion, let me translate the above into English. Calvinism is a system of thought that really began with the early church writer Augustine but because of his eloquent expositions of and further thought on the matter became identified with the Reformer, Jean Calvin. He took the seed which was present in Augustine's thought and turned it into a fully developed theology, a way of thinking about how God relates to humanity in His decisions to save some people and justly condemn others. In his greatest work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin gave a careful exposition of what he believed in relation to this matter called predestination. Predestination is a biblical doctrine and there are many passages which touch on it. What there is no clear agreement on, in any stream of Christianity, is exactly how it is to be understood. Hence, over the years many thinkers have pondered over and written on the subject and people who have adopted variations of their views have come to be identified by the names of the respective thinkers. ie. Calvinists are said to follow Jean Calvin's interpretation of the subject and Arminians are said to follow Jacobus Arminius' view of the subject and so on. What is often missed is that those who come to be known by such labels as Calvinists or Arminians quite often disagree within their respective camps as to how the camp leaders themselves ought to be interpreted. Hence, there are sub-versions of Calvinism and sub-versions of Arminianism and so on. The problems further compound when those in different camps use the same words but often define them very differently. So a meeting of thoughts is rare unless definitions are mutually agreed on in advance. Anyways, in Christian thought humans are considered sinful and in direct and open rebellion against God. The consequence of this is that the final state of the rebels is the state of damnation where each rebel will justly receive exactly what they deserve according to the level of their rebellion. But God "desires" (in some sense) the salvation of these rebels. He "wants" (in some sense) to restore these rebels to a right relationship with Him in which their final state will be to enjoy eternity in His presence in community with all the redeemed. So the Bible speaks of Him electing many to salvation. The process by which He elects, or chooses, who will get saved is what is generally under debate when people start arguing about predestination. Calvin considered that in His own secret counsel, God freely chooses some to be saved and that based on something known only to Himself and not at all based on any supposed merit or worth of any given individual being elected, or chosen, for salvation. In contrast, since all justly deserve condemnation and none justly merit salvation, God according to some secret counsel known only to Himself decides to pass over all others, not giving them the graces of salvation. Those who are passed over, or not chosen, are said to be reprobated. Hence, in "double predestination" God knows all could be justly condemned, but He graciously chooses to save some and in doing so necessarily predestines those not chosen to face condemnation. But this reprobation is said to be based on what they themselves have done and deserve and that God is both glorified in choosing to save some and justified in deciding to let the rest face condemnation. I realise this is all as clear as mud. Take Bill and Fred. They are both army deserters in a time of war and during their desertion they decide to indulge in a little looting and raping. They get caught and both are found guilty and sentenced to face the firing squad. They are locked in cells and await the execution of their sentence. Both are justly condemned and neither deserve mercy in accordance with the laws of the military which govern such behaviour. There is nothing they can do to escape their situation. But the commander overseeing the case decides, on some basis known only to himself, to show mercy and pardon Bill but allow Fred to face the consequences of his actions. Now, Bill does not deserve this mercy and Fred is not unjustly condemned. Bill is elected to mercy and salvation based only on the commander's own decision. But Fred is "passed over" and faces the consequences of his actions. The above is a very limited analogy but shows in some respects as to how "double predestination" might be understood.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jun 7, 2006 8:34:53 GMT -5
Hence, in "double predestination" God knows all could be justly condemned, but He graciously chooses to save some and in doing so necessarily predestines those not chosen to face condemnation. But this reprobation is said to be based on what they themselves have done and deserve and that God is both glorified in choosing to save some and justified in deciding to let the rest face condemnation. So.......those who are saved are saved for some unknown reason completely external to themselves, but those who are damned are damned because of their actions? That really is depressing.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2006 8:46:38 GMT -5
Karl, And there again you will find a definitional problem. Only hyper-Calvinists believe that God actively predestines people to salvation. Calvinism as followed up by many Reformed thinkers would agree that in Double Predestination God is not actively predestining the reprobate to damnation. That is to say God is believed to actively predestine some to salvation, but by a different operation those He passes over are reprobated by their own will and actions just as the elect would be reprobated by their own will and actions had He not chosen to elect them. ie. All are worthy by their own will and actions to be condemned yet God graciously elects some to salvation based on His own good will and not in accordance with any foreseen merit in those persons and those He passes over are not actively predestined to condemnation but will merely receive the fitting end for what they have willed and acted upon. Allegedly the non-Calvinist error in trying to understand Calvinist thinking is that God predestines to damnation by the same operation that He predestines to salvation. Calvinists stridently deny this "misrepresentation" of Calvinism. I do follow the generally calvinistic line found in TULIP, but am not a hyper calvinist by any means. I believed in election long before I knew of calvinism. One of the things that I struggle with, personally earlier in my walk, and that I see others struggle with is defending our systematic theologies. I honestly do not think that any of the orthodox theological systems have the corner on God's modus operandi. Too often, I see people become ardent devotees of a certain system, and then use that as the dividing line either allowing or prohibiting fellowship with ither believers. I have a friend that is a Reformed pastor, (the joke: reformed from what?), and we have tried to get our people together, but "doctrine" seems to be the issue. Quite frankly, none of the people who divide on this line could defend/explain their own doctrine, nor do they make attempts to understand why good believing men and women have believed differently on things like eschatology, order of salvation, calvinism, arminianism, and so on. What I have found, is that once I make the effort to have a working understanding of someone's biblical, though different than mine, view of these issues. I find that I can freely fellowship with them, and we can usually have some really good conversations together. Providing strong apologies for the inerrancy of scripture, the triune God, salvation by grace through faith alone, the divinity of Jesus, and the physical return of Messiah is a necessary duty for each believer. But once you get past this small circle of issues, there is room for flex, and we should allow each other biblically orthodox flex room. In my own evangelical camp, this very thing happens, other systems are put down, and most of the time neither side has made an honset effort to understand why/how someone else thinks differently on an issue than they do. I don't fit into any of the camps- I am a reformed dispensational calvinist premillennial/post tribber. How's that? I still can't make it look good on a business card... I have read, and continue to read, from many streams in the river of Christian thought, from Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, and more, but have found that I do not perfectly agree with any one author. There is also not a lot of separation, except for extremist non biblical view points. My "family" has grown quite large, and I am appreciative of how these folks have broadened not just my knowledge and appreciation, but my humility as well. I even get Molinists! God is too broad and deep for any one camp to claim "the" understanding of Him. Yet He is not at all unknowable- but like any relationship you do have to do some seeking. If there are gifts given to believers, and there are, they are for building each other up. And that is as it should be. According to the Bible, The inerrant, God-breathed word from the only true God. Thanks- Karl
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2006 8:54:54 GMT -5
Very good, Karl. I hear you and appreciate what you are saying and think along similar lines with respect to "doing church" and "talking theology".
We don't seem to far apart anyway. I would consider myself a lutheran-reformed-cum-orthodox/catholic progressive-dispensational molinist premillenial/post tribber. ;D
Amen and amen.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 7, 2006 8:56:44 GMT -5
What is a molinist?
Linda
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jun 7, 2006 8:58:36 GMT -5
I agree with Clay. That really is atrocious.
This is a big problem when you start over-analysing doctrinal technicalities: You have to start inventing other doctrines to cover the exceptions and perceived contradictions. Even the Roman Catholic Church has developed some doctrines with some pretty tenuous justification.
Of course, the F&W run to the other extreme. They don't have any written doctrine, (apart from the Bible of course), which is a wonderfully flexible position to be in. You can deny any previous interpretations, unless those pesky people who take meeting notes get in the way. Of course, with no mechanism to formally publish and diseminate doctrinal positions, there also exists some wonderful regional variations. viz. I've never experienced that preached in our area and other such defenses cropping up on this board.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jun 7, 2006 8:59:56 GMT -5
I don't fit into any of the camps- I am a reformed dispensational calvinist premillennial/post tribber. How's that? I still can't make it look good on a business card... *LOL* God is too broad and deep for any one camp to claim "the" understanding of Him. Yet He is not at all unknowable- but like any relationship you do have to do some seeking. If there are gifts given to believers, and there are, they are for building each other up. Amen. To my knowledge, even the Catholic Church has not tried to formally explain Predestination.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2006 9:03:02 GMT -5
Ahh Linda,
That's like asking "how long is a rubber band?"
Roughly, molinism preserves the sovereignty of God exemplified in Calvinism and the free and moral responsibility of man as exemplified in Arminianism, and goes on to create new difficult questions.
In the Protestant traditions there are primarily Calvinists and Arminians. In the Roman Catholic traditions there are primarily Thomists (as in Thomas Aquinas) and Molinists (as in Luis de Molina). A number of evangelical theologians and philosophers are now holding to some form of molinism. I identify my position on predestination as molinist.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 7, 2006 9:10:11 GMT -5
Thanks Rob. Sounds like I could be a molinist too, but I don't want to lock myself in... Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Jun 7, 2006 9:15:25 GMT -5
That is sad. Very sad. I assure you most people I know who share this faith are sincere in their desire to demonstrate appreciation towards the gift of their heavenly father. It is no act! But I'm glad I do not have to judge - that is in the hands of god.
|
|
|
Post by guest50 on Jun 7, 2006 9:59:07 GMT -5
I think Linda has expressed it perfectly.- better than I could ever begin to! Thank you for that! The dead do not know we have forgiven them but it is important to US and OUR well being to forgive. It really does not matter to the dead person - that is now between them and God and you and God. If you hang on to it - you will grow old carrying that burden and it is just not worth it. I personally do not have any individuals that have died that I have had any anger or bad feelings for. I generally tend to be too forgiving so most times wind up becoming a victim over and over. I see no point in being angry and holding bad feelings forever since it only hurts me in the long term. As I said, though, it would be easier for me if the individual(s) were gone than knowing they are still here and I would still possibly run into them , have the pain inflicted once more and have to go through the whole thought process of what occurred and forgiving all over and over again and again. There are those that I had had issues with and I do not care to ever see them again nor have a relationship with them, but I do not hate them nor am I angry with them - there is just a feeling of "nothing" there and I chose to fill my life with positives and other things and not to dwell on the past. Can't change the past - only learn from it and know that I do not ever want to be their victim again and move forward. I sleep better at night.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 7, 2006 11:37:12 GMT -5
KARL WROTE: He didn't use that term, but that is what the idea expressed in Institutes is commonly called. That's why I used it, to give a common point of reference. I do not believe that God actively predestines people to damnation. ANSWER: No. I do not believe in DOUBLE PREDESTINATION. Thank you for finally admitting that Calvin did not so name the doctrine of predestination. It is a modern-day derisive twisting of the original doctrine. DP is the modern term assigned to the original doctrine of predestination, which I DO believe in. I believe DP is an attempt to make it sound more derisive than man has a stomach for and no one will ever, therefore attempt to defend it. Calvinists defend it. In the Reformed arena, neither do WE believe that God ACTIVELY and NEGATIVELY intervenes in the reprobate life to CAUSE SIN, as I think people are accusing in this ++ double positive ++ position. R.C. Sproul Sr. (Reformed theologian) states in his aptly titled essay, Double Predestination www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html, "This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God." I like John Piper a lot for his missionary zeal and that's why I carry his website - I have not studied what he personally believes. I HAVE heard him say that he is a 7-point Calvinist - as a joke. But I cannot comment on whether or not he is a hyper-Calvinist (another derisive term meant to thwart the whole idea of predestination). Here’s Wayne Grudem’s definition of Election: Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure. I don’t suppose it would do any good to try to get any kind of exegesis from these scriptures (some of MANY . . . from all the many words from above – everything BUT scripture. Acts 13:48 . . . as many as were appointed to eternal life believed . . . Rom 8:28-30, Rom 9:11-13, Rom 11:7, Rom 8:29-30, Rev 13:7-8, Rev 17:8 & MANY OTHER PASSAGES in the OT, also. Christ's, Jessi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2006 11:42:31 GMT -5
I didn't finally admit, I just didn't understand what exactly you were asking for.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by to Rob O on Jun 7, 2006 12:24:25 GMT -5
I hope I can express my thoughts so you can understand my question AND answer it. Rob writes- "Take Bill and Fred. They are both army deserters in a time of war and during their desertion they decide to indulge in a little looting and raping. They get caught and both are found guilty and sentenced to face the firing squad. They are locked in cells and await the execution of their sentence. Both are justly condemned and neither deserve mercy in accordance with the laws of the military which govern such behaviour. There is nothing they can do to escape their situation.
But the commander overseeing the case decides, on some basis known only to himself, to show mercy and pardon Bill but allow Fred to face the consequences of his actions. Now, Bill does not deserve this mercy and Fred is not unjustly condemned. Bill is elected to mercy and salvation based only on the commander's own decision. But Fred is "passed over" and faces the consequences of his actions. "Bill and Fred did some BAD things........consider Oscar. He didn't do bad things, didn't talk bad about his neighbor, was responsible to his wife and family. How does this example fit into the picture-Oscar never really did anything bad, but he could be passed over too? Right? If that is correct, then what did he do to be reprobate? Kathy G. I'm thinking of the verses, Lord, Lord, didn't we do many wonderful things in your name......and he says-I don't know you. Sorry if this is an inappropriate question-TEACH ME! I have REALLY enjoyed this discussion. We need MORE of this!
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 7, 2006 19:32:22 GMT -5
Brother Karl, I'm sorry. I hope I have not offended you. I've sinned against you by thinking you were trying to avoid my question. If I have, will you forgive? I was just very anxious to state my case and had to wait two days. My impatience is a sin that I trip over all the time. Please forgive it.
To my Savior God be ALL Glory, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on Jun 7, 2006 19:50:32 GMT -5
Consider it done-
Thanks! Karl
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 7, 2006 20:14:22 GMT -5
Thanks, Karl!
Christ is Lord, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 7, 2006 21:14:03 GMT -5
Hi Kathy G,
Sorry if this is an inappropriate question-TEACH ME! I have REALLY enjoyed this discussion. We need MORE of this!
It's certainly not inappropriate. It widens the discussion further.
Bill and Fred did some BAD things........consider Oscar. He didn't do bad things, didn't talk bad about his neighbor, was responsible to his wife and family.
How does this example fit into the picture-Oscar never really did anything bad, but he could be passed over too? Right? If that is correct, then what did he do to be reprobate?
Analogies are just pictures which are used to try and illustrate a concept. They rarely cover all the bases, and I admit that mine was limited.
Let me think about this for a bit and try for an analogy which covers more.
|
|