From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sat Jun 28 2003 - 04:09:02 EDT
George Murphy wrote in part:
"That of course raises the question of why God doesn't simply convert all people.
Why aren't all saved? The standard answers are:
a) Some people don't contribute the activity of their "free will" to believe -
problematic in view of what was said above.
b) God has not only predestined some to be saved but has predestined others to
be condemned - which is hard to square with I Tim.2:4."
And I Tim. 2:4 is hard to square with Romans 9:11-24, unless you go with a nonstandard answer that I've found to be quite satisfying: Basically, there's something about people that makes it impossible--even for God--to save all of them. That something is ego. We wouldn't be human without ego, but it's an aspect of ourselves that can get us into deep trouble. Because of ego it is psychologically impossible for all humans to acknowledge allegiance to the same lord, principle, idea, whatever. As soon as it looks like a great many are about to acknowledge such allegiance, some will refuse to do so just to be different. This is especially true if the allegiance is of a sort that requires suppression of ego in submitting to a person who one must acknowledge is greater than oneself.
Rev. 12:7-9 talks about a war of good angels against evil angels. Why would angels in heaven who presumably have all the benefits that God can provide want to rebel and fight against God? It's the ego problem. If every human were saved and taken to heaven, wouldn't some then rebel as those angels rebelled? So God can't save everyone, even though it is in his nature to do so. Consequently, as long as he does it reluctantly, he can predestine some to condemnation and still be consistent with I Tim. 2:4.
Don
PS - I consider this rejection of God "to his face" to be the unforgivable sin, the sin against the Spirit. One can commit this sin only if one has "...been enlightened, ...tasted the heavenly gift, ...shared in the Holy Spirit...." To refuse to submit to God in his vivid presence is the ultimate sin of ego. But not many, I think, ever have this temptation. It requires an unusually strong ego in an unusually close relationship with God.
Josh Bembenek wrote:
>
> George: "Certainly what Abraham is pictured as being engaged in is natural
> theology. I agree with your analysis of the origin of such legends, but
> this isn't simply a matter of building of Abraham. By doing that the
> capability of human beings in general to discover something of the truth
> about God on their own is built up. If we take this legend seriously we're
> flattering not just Abraham but ourselves."
>
> I agree that the presentation of Abraham discovering God is giving credit
> where credit is not due. However, it seems that your description of our
> coming to faith is solely placed in God's hands (as much scripture
> supports.) It comes across almost like a natural law: God chooses and we
> believe, much like magnets are drawn to one another naturally. I would love
> to hear how you see free will participating in this process, and how we are
> given enough freedom to remain responsible for our actions and commitment or
> lack thereof to Christ, yet it is God who predestines and calls. (a magnet
> has no choice to pull toward another magnet, according to natural law and
> -besides it not being a moral agent- would not be held accountable for
> acting according to magnetic forces.) I had a conversation about this with
> some friends recently and would love to get some feedback, perhaps some
> citations. Not to elevate the credit humans have, but to develop an
> accurate and complete picture...
Josh -
Dave has pointed out some of the thorny philosophical problems involved with
determinism & free will. Theologically the issue is not so much determinism, in a sense
like that of Newtonian mechanics, as it is of damage to the will due to sin. The
fundamental problem which sin poses isn't that we want to trust God but for some reason
aren't able to. It's that we don't want to. It's precisely the will that's messed up.
The question of whether or not our wills play a positive role in conversion is
different from the question of whether or not you have freedom to choose what to have
for breakfast. The latter question is something that scientists and philosophers debate
- though of course it also has theological implications. In any case, the Augsburg
Confession (to operate within my tradition now) has no problem in saying (Article 18)
that we are free to choose "whether or not to eat or drink or visit a friend" &c. But
as far as our relationship with God is concerned a person is (prior to the work of the
Spirit) "not capable of making himself acceptable to God, of fearing and believing in
God with his whole heart, or of expelling inborn lusts from his heart." Ephesians 2:1
describes people prior to conversion not as being simply "bound" or "wounded" but
"dead".
That being the case, conversion must be the work God - something done _in_ us
(we're the ones who believe) but _by_ God. "No one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by
the Holy Spirit" (I Cor.12:3).
That of course raises the question of why God doesn't simply convert all people.
Why aren't all saved? The standard answers are:
a) Some people don't contribute the activity of their "free will" to believe -
problematic in view of what was said above.
b) God has not only predestined some to be saved but has predestined others to
be condemned - which is hard to square with I Tim.2:4.
Both answers are logical, though both have to finesse parts of the NT. The
classic Lutheran answer (Formula of Concord, Article 11) seems logically unsatisfactory
but is more sound theologically: Those who are saved are saved because God has chosen
them and converted them, and those who are condemned - well, it's their fault.
That's, as I said, the classic response. I think that Karl Barth's
understanding of election (that it's first of all _Christ_ who is elected - both for
blessedness and for condemnation) puts the whole issue in a different light, & also
raises some new questions (like universalism). But I've gone on long enough.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jun 28 2003 - 04:04:37 EDT