tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post113108388511244729..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Christ's role in every spiritual blessingWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1141786147834301852006-03-07T20:49:00.000-06:002006-03-07T20:49:00.000-06:00So the "included" thing is a translator's best eff...<I>So the "included" thing is a translator's best efforts but not the most literal thing in the world. <BR/></I><BR/>Ah. That's reasonable. <BR/><I><BR/>I'm glad you're interested in hearing more. I've got more posts in the hopper.</I><BR/><BR/>Cool.Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1141783365997560002006-03-07T20:02:00.000-06:002006-03-07T20:02:00.000-06:00Hi PokeGlad you're interested. I'm actually more ...Hi Poke<BR/><BR/>Glad you're interested. I'm actually more optimistic about you than some others because you're not married to the TULIP (or the rose), but to Christ. However, I have to emphasize that it's a huge paradigm shift. <BR/><BR/>Btw on the Greek of the "included in Christ", the NIV (which often slants texts in a Calvinistic way) in this case is slanting it but not in a Calvinistic way. The "included" isn't there. The Greek goes (roughly) along these lines: ... having previously hoped in Christ, in whom you also, believing, were sealed ... <BR/><BR/>So the "included" thing is a translator's best efforts but not the most literal thing in the world. <BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're interested in hearing more. I've got more posts in the hopper.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1141779820068728042006-03-07T19:03:00.000-06:002006-03-07T19:03:00.000-06:00Your pessimism is well founded. ;-) I cannot promi...Your pessimism is well founded. ;-) I cannot promise to do better. :-D<BR/><BR/>I will confine myself to this passage, and to election. <BR/><BR/>When I read <I>For he chose us in him before the creation ... </I> I picture the Son opening Himself to the Father, and the Father calling out within the Son the seeds of every member of the bride. Our regenerated life is His Life broken and given to us. These pieces of the Son were set aside within the Son before the world was created, and waited to be planted within people. These seeds would be planted in creation, and would grow up to be blameless and to be adopted. <BR/><BR/>Had Adam not sinned, every one of those seeds would have been planted within a son or daughter of Adam and Eve, and every living soul would have received His life. One-to-one. No loss. <BR/><BR/>Adam sinned, though, so billions more humans were born than God elected in Christ. The plan of God did not change due to that event, though. The seeds chosen in Christ were still exactly the same in number and identity as before the fall. <BR/><BR/>The next question is how Christ joins that seed to me. I believe the Spirit plants it in me, and then the seed grows and teaches me to believe. Within this passage, only verse 13 seems to address this question. <BR/><BR/>I can look at several translations of verse 13, but I don't have your knowledge of Greek. Here is the translation that most militates against my view:<BR/><I>And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.</I><BR/><BR/>This translation actually implies that my belief causally included me in the Son. If this is the most correct translation, then those seeds are waiting in Christ for the people to accept them. In this case, the seeds are nameless until one of us takes that seed by faith. Billions resist grace, but when one submits to God, he or she takes into himself an elected seed and becomes elect. <BR/><BR/>Other translations seem to imply that I believed because I was included. If those translations are most correct, then maybe the seed is planted first. In that case, the seeds were named in eternity past, and awaited our birth. Once the seed was planted in us, it could no more resist growing than any earthly seed. Seeds grow, and they grow into that from which they sprung. <BR/><BR/>I believe that other verses interpret this verse consistently with irresistible grace (or I don't guess I'd be typing now), but I used to believe that God set up an infinite supply of grace for all who come, too! I am looking forward to your answer. <BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I think you may suspect why this is of interest to me. I hope someday to need to reconcile believers on both sides of this fence. Your position sounds like it might be livable for the open minded, but I have to hear more about it. How better than to push against it. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Thank you!Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1141753488322920202006-03-07T11:44:00.000-06:002006-03-07T11:44:00.000-06:00LOL, so you wanted to read an outline on a blog. ...LOL, so you wanted to read an outline on a blog. But all 3 of my other readers have been quieter than crickets. <BR/><BR/>When you say basically election brings you Christ and Christ brings you everything else, + irresistible grace, the results are the same as election (which in Calvinism is apart from Christ) bringing you everything, since the rest was irresistible. And the initial grace of Calvinism (election) was not through Christ, which is not Scriptural. It removes Christ from the center of the equation, from the starting point, and makes him secondary. It's "election plus domino effect" and Christ is a crucial domino, but not the first one. <BR/><BR/>Btw I have a similar complaint against the Arminians. They assume the initial grace to receive Christ resides in themselves, apart from Christ. I have not seen support for that view. <BR/><BR/>I'm good with continuing the conversation but I'll have to say that in my experience most people's initial assumptions are held so unconsciously that it's not easy to shift gears and even see that other viewpoints exist, other paradigms are possible than the assumed ones.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1141752705278048722006-03-07T11:31:00.000-06:002006-03-07T11:31:00.000-06:00I don't know whether you want to work more on this...I don't know whether you want to work more on this. If you do...<BR/><BR/><I>In Calvinism,...</I><BR/><BR/>I cannot actually defend Calvinism. I don't know the fine details well enough to be sure that you are characterizing their beliefs accurately. That's OK. I don't particularly care about their beliefs. Calvinists with an ecclesiology I find palatable are not thick on the ground. <BR/><BR/><I>...lead to very different theologies.</I><BR/><BR/>This is, of course, my question. I don't see it. I agree with every syllable of your next post, and yet I find irresistible grace all over the scripture. When I start Eph 1 with Christ, I find Him bringing every spiritual blessing to those He has been given by His Father. The Father's work of election brought me only one blessing, Christ. Christ brought me everything the Father wanted His Son and His church to have. He brought it to me while I was His enemy, and had the Spirit not worked powerfully I would not have received it.<BR/><BR/>Wherein is Christ's role limited? <BR/><BR/>The Father chose us in Christ, predestines us through Christ, and blesses us in Christ. It sounds like agreement in everything to me. <BR/><BR/><I>I mean, who really wants to read an outline on a blog for crying' out loud </I><BR/><BR/>You have to ask?Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1141705548193369712006-03-06T22:25:00.000-06:002006-03-06T22:25:00.000-06:00In Calvinism, God's decision of election brings a ...In Calvinism, God's decision of election brings a person to Christ (or Christ to a person); Calvinists view election as a blessing that is logically prior to receiving Christ and does not come through Christ. In Calvinism, all blessings come through election, and election does not come through Christ. Christ's role is very limited. <BR/><BR/>Paul's theme in Ephesians 1 is that all spiritual blessings -- and he names election and predestination among them -- are through Christ and in Christ. I skipped the tedious outline of Eph. 1 here -- I mean, who really wants to read an outline on a blog for crying' out loud -- but trace it through if you're interested. Flip over to Eph. 1 and look at the topic statement: he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Then follow all the supporting points, which are all the spiritual blessings and how Christ is at the root of each and every one. <BR/><BR/>The different starting points -- whether all blessings are received through predestination or whether all blessings (including predestination) are received through Christ -- lead to very different theologies.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1141698558645135572006-03-06T20:29:00.000-06:002006-03-06T20:29:00.000-06:00I reviewed your comments about this under my debat...I reviewed your comments about this under my debate heading, and reviewed your verses here. I don't see how your understanding Christ's role would redefine predestination? I hold to the TULIP points and believe that unconditional election was done in Christ. Am I missing something?<BR/><BR/>Which of those points are at issue here?Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.com