Calvinism, the elect

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Aidan, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    699
    Likes Received:
    896
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I think my position is that the question of the canon of scripture is limited in term of authority in matters of doctrine to the 66 books, however the Deutero Canonical texts are indeed part of scripture.

    The belief that the text of the 66 books is infallible an inerrant in the original text is not a matter that can be required to be believed in order to be saved.

    God is prisoner of neither book nor tabernacle.
     
  2. ICHTHUS

    ICHTHUS New Member

    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    9
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Evangelical Christian
    I have done a study on the Protestant and Roman Catholic Canon of the Old Testament Books, if you have time to read and comment?

    http://192.210.220.122/~zefqpplr/studies/otcanon.htm
     
  3. DivineOfficeNerd

    DivineOfficeNerd Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    105
    Likes Received:
    118
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Laudian Anglo-Catholic
    I don't think the issue is one of denying the need for repentance or claiming that all will be saved. The ancient collects of the Church consistently pray for those outside of the Church, that they may be saved. Their salvation is not guaranteed, and imo it is not a hopeful cause, but there is nothing unhealthy in praying that God will have mercy on all.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  4. ICHTHUS

    ICHTHUS New Member

    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    9
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Evangelical Christian
    I agree that we must pray for ALL the lost to be saved, as I sincerely believe that this is the heart of the God of the Holy Bible, Who says, that He is, "not wishing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9). But, this does not mean as some suppose, that sinners can be saved, either in this life, or the next, without "repenting", as this is essential for any sinner before they can enter heaven. This is the theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and cannot be changed.
     
    DivineOfficeNerd likes this.
  5. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    973
    Likes Received:
    577
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    Does universalism include the Hitlers and Stalins of history?
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  6. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    699
    Likes Received:
    896
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Thank you for that. I think that the area is a bit vexed. It does seem to me that the writers of the New Testament used the LXX, and most likely Jesus quotes from the LXX. On that basis I have a great deal of trouble being outright dismissive of the LXX. On the other hand, with great respect to the Hebrew tradition of which we are part as adopted children of Abraham, it seems to me that the Masoretic Canon does have some sense of precedence. As a result I am quite happy with the position of the 39 where the Deutero Canonical texts are recognized for their importance, but with a little restriction especially in terms of doctrine and precedence there being given to the Proto Canonical texts.

    I feel that some in the reformed traditions who have banished the Deuterocanonical texts have done themselves a disservice.
     
  7. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    190
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    I don't believe it, I'm just relaying the view. I believe 2 Timothy 3:16, I hope you find that satisfactory.
     
  8. ICHTHUS

    ICHTHUS New Member

    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    9
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Evangelical Christian
    Hi Philip, my article was in no way an attack on the LXX, but to show that the original version did not contain the additional books that the Roman Catholic bible has, as some of their dates were to late to have been part of it. I do see the value of the LXX as it has readings in some places, that are in agreement with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the traditional Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. The LXX itself was based on Hebrew manuscripts of its time, and produced by the best Jewish Hebrew scholars of the time. I would say that Jesus and the New Testament writers would have used the Hebrew text underlying the LXX, rather the LXX, as the LXX is only a translation and therefore not "inspired" as the original Hebrew Bible is. They could not have used an "uninspired" work and include its text into the "inspired" New Testament. Otherwise we have a mixture of both, the Word of God (quotes from the Hebrew original Bible), and the words of man (from the LXX), which is not possible. How can you say that the Reformed who do not use "Deuterocanonical texts have done themselves a disservice"? As they are not the Word of God (Inspired), its content is not equally important as the Inspired Holy Bible, and therefore of no greater value than any history book.
     
  9. ICHTHUS

    ICHTHUS New Member

    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    9
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Evangelical Christian
    When you say, "I don't believe it", are you referring to my last paragraph on the Bible?
     
  10. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    699
    Likes Received:
    896
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I don't especially want an argument on this, however it is hard to see that the writer of John 3:14 was not at least conversant with the Wisdom of Solomon 16:7. I see no reason to think that Jesus and the writers of the NT would have used anything other than the LXX on face reading, save that you wish to make a point about it. My view is in the absence of any other real evidence that they most probably did use it.

    I have been clear that I believe that the Deutero Canon can not be used on its own to establish doctrine. That does not of itself consign it to the dustbins of history.

    Because I think that the second canon can be very helpful in helping us get a deeper understanding of the primary canon which is the point of the example above.

    An enlarged canon is used not simply by the Church in Rome, but also in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and the Orthodox world in general.
     
    Shane R likes this.
  11. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    190
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    No, universalism.
     
    ICHTHUS likes this.
  12. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    898
    Likes Received:
    727
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Yeah there is no basis for this belief. Not only does our Lord warn against not repenting in time, but the constant teaching of the Fathers and the Divines has been very clear on this. There is a sense of urgency that pervades the entire history of Christianity. Universalism does away with urgency, and is a form of liberalism.

    Let us not try to invent a new Christianity here, that has never ended well. All can be saved, but some (even most) will not be saved, and it is the Christian's imperative to try to fix that much as possible.

    The one way not to fix this is by changing the terms of the debate, as if by changing who we say gets saved, that that gets more people saved. We unlock the hands of God and the mysteries of heaven by changing the terms of the debate, right? No.

    What we say the truth is, is one thing, and what the truth itself is, is something different, and in changing what we say doesn't change the truth itself, and can run the risk of horrifically misleading, lulling people around us into a sense of comfortable security. It really makes us comfortable -- we never have to get say something uncomfortable to those around us.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2018
  13. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    1,866
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    I am fully committed to scripture and submit, as best as any frail sinner can, my life to its infallible authority. My respect for it means that I try not to take it out of its intended context. Hebrews 9:27, must be read in the context of St. Paul's complete thought. His point was that Christ's atoning sacrifice was all sufficient to do away with the world's sin so that he would not have to ever do it again and that when he returns it will not to bear sin again but to bring salvation. In context, it was clearly not a text intended to refute universal reconciliation.

    I would also point out that that judgment does not equal eternal punishment. If it did then there would be no hope for anyone since the verse clearly states it is man's destiny to die and be judged no exceptions. It would mean we all are condemned and Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. But men do have hope in Jesus, not to escape judgment, but to escape punishment through his forgiveness. I believe that God will save us all because Christ has revealed His character the God of Love, whose love never fails. A God who is merciful and forgiving. A God who is all powerful, whose will can never be thwarted by anyone. So when he says He desires none to perish, none will. When Christ says he will draw all men to himself, he will. And when he declared the savior of the world, that is exactly who he is. Not just the savior of some the world. He is the good shepherd who would leave all for just one who is lost and when he finds him, he won't ask "have you accepted me into your heart?" He will do what is required to claim what is his and the sheep will be powerless to resist him.

    Repentance will happen, as will judgment, as will, I hope, forgiveness and reconciliation for all. God remains faithful even when we are faithless, for he cannot deny himself.
     
  14. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    699
    Likes Received:
    896
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Isaiah 45.23:
    By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return:
    ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’

    Romans 14.11:
    For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to* God.’

    Philippians 2:9-11:
    Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,
    so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    John 3:17
    ‘Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.​

    As I said in an earlier post, there is ground in scripture which lends some weight to the propositions put by Universalism, so I am not going to simply dismiss it, however I do not think it was a position widely embraced in the writings of the Anglican Divines, and I don't think it is a position put before us in the 39 articles.

    The question that I raised in the earlier post Cur Deus Homo? (why God became man?) is still a matter that should be considered here, and Anselm did explore that question in his work of the same name. A solid reading of the 39 gives one to believe that Cranmer and Parker were well familiar with the thinking of Anselm who had sat in the same chair before them. Article 17 which discusses Predestination, perhaps limits the embrace of the idea by reminding us to the peril of relying on this outcome, and certainly does not leave us convinced of a single outcome in the next life regardless of what we have believed and done in this life. This ultimately comes down to what I would describe as the urgency of the gospel.

    I am not saying that Universalism is wrong, however I am not sure that there is enough to say that it is correct either. The admonition to caution in Article 17 in relation to Predestination should, in my humble opinion, also be flagged for Universalism.
     
  15. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    190
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    It should be noted, as an aside, that the 42 Articles condemned "the dangerous opinion that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved when they have suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice," though this article was removed under Elizabeth.
     
  16. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    973
    Likes Received:
    577
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
     
  17. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    1,866
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Ultimately, yes. But the Stalins and Hitlers that enter into God's kingdom will not be the same Hitlers and Stalins who wrought such evil in this world. I believe, and I believe scripture backs me up on this, that holiness precedes happiness. And if Stalin and Hitler departed this life as unrepentent sinners not knowing the peace of God in Christ, then they departed this life with only fire and worm and wrath awaiting them in the outer darkness. But as sure as there is a hell, when Hitler and Stalin and all the other sinners have paid the uttermost farthing, then all of them, whether they were beaten with many stripes or with few, will ultimately repent, that is, turn from their wikedness and be welcomed into the arms of a loving father will be filled with compassion and embrace them and kiss them and cry out "Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found."

    This is the victory we have in Jesus, that nothing is too hard for God. No heart is so calloused that it cannot be broken under the love of God, no spirit so dead that it cannot be renewed. With God all things are possible. As the angels proclaimed it on the first Christmas, the Gospel isn't for just some people, rather it is "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people."
     
    PotterMcKinney and Stalwart like this.
  18. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    898
    Likes Received:
    727
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    My friend, but would you then offer Jesus to Hitler? And if so, why? Hitler will have Jesus, whether you offer or not.
     
  19. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    1,866
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    A valid question. I think there are 2 points I would make:

    (1) As a Christian, I am duty-bound to preach the Gospel to all nations and every creature. But moreover, I want to share the Gospel with people, especially to those who need to hear it most, because I hope they will come to share the same peace and hope that I have found in Jesus. Happiness loves company even more than misery does.

    (2) Just because I believe hell is finite does not mean I discount the intensity of suffering involved. Having one's sins forgiven in this life is immeasurably better than having them burned out in God's purifying fire in the hereafter. If Jesus came down from His place on high to be tortured and die to keep us from travelling that path of tribulation, it must be terrible indeed. I think the difference can be likened to convincing someone to give up smoking early on before any lasting damage occurs versus having that person continue down the path and eventually getting cancer having to undergo rounds of chemo and surgery. Even if the physician ultimately is able to save the smoker, I think we can easily see the benefit in him being able to forego such suffering had he listened and quit early on.

    Quite simply, whether the suffering is finite or eternal, we share the Gospel because we want to help people flee the wrath to come.
     
  20. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    898
    Likes Received:
    727
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    But why? If you say because God commands it in the Scriptures, the obvious follow-up is, why would he command something which by your theory is so patently unnecessary?

    But by your theory your hope has nothing to do with it. They will have it no matter what.

    Why should you want to share the Gospel with people who have it anyway?
     

Share This Page