I've thought about Jesus' proclamation in Matt. 12:25 and Luke 11:17 several times and been troubled by it. I am not sure I get the logic of it. Perhaps I am too modern for my own good, but in the age of James Bond and Jack Bauer, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Satan might place a double agent on Earth to influence some people by casting out a few demons.
But then I have Jesus saying that it is impossible. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. It is in my Bible, therefore it is true.
Which leads me to question the issue from a different perspective. The inevitable result of a divided kingdom, in this case one demon casting out other demons, is destruction. If that is true, what does it say about our world in modernity? We have used secret agents and double agents for most of modernity.
In reading Greenmantle with my Humanities class, I have been forced to reevaluate this issue again. The main character in the novel is a secret agent sent behind enemy lines to discover some secret plot to generate a jihad among Muslim Turks during the Great War. The narrative borrows much from typical British "Great Game" language and the terms and phrases are used often.
If we use agents and spies and such, are we doomed to destruction? What real benefit have they given us? Is the use of such tactics in peacetime and warfare a foray into national violations of the 9th commandment.
I still have much to consider here.
Showing posts with label Bible-NT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible-NT. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Arminian Quandary
"that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their tresspasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19
If we were to take this verse as the Arminian must take it, we are left with a quandary. How is it that men ever actually pay for their own sins? Do they pay for the very last sin they commit, and Christ takes the punishment for all the others? Do they get their sins back at the Judgment seat once it has been established that they never accepted Christ in life? How does the salvation transaction really work in Arminian thought? Why is this a problem for the Arminian?
It is a problem because in the Arminian scheme, Christ didn't actually do anything except die and rise again on the cross. Everything else is potential in the Arminian scheme. Christ potentially paid for sins. Thus it is possible that no one would accept Him and He died in vain. Christ didn't actually take any sin onto himself on the cross, for it was not known yet that anyone would take advantage of the sacrifice. All of the disciples fled, it was possible that none of them could have returned or believed that He had been raised from the dead.
But why is this verse so troublesome for Arminians? Because it presents God actively doing something with the expectation that an action will follow, namely repentance and justification. The verse presents God as not imputing sins to people, but as Paul says in Romans, reserving them. Now that Christ has paid for all of those sins, they are now worthless actions. It is not uncommon to hear Christians say that Christ paid for every sin you will or can commit. This is true, but the Arminian has no business saying it without qualifying that Christ hasn't actually paid for them until a person accepts the sacrifice given. How then is Christ not sacrificed again every time a person accepts Him? The quandary is inexcusable. We border on heresy to say that Christ is crucified every time a person is saved, yet the Arminian cannot explain how Christ actually died for all who would be saved and died for the possibility that every man could be saved.
We may say that Christ died for every person that would accept him. But how did He know which ones to die for? Foreknowledge, the Arminian says. Christ looked forward in time and saw each and every person who would ever accept His sacrifice and those He saw, He elected and died for. But then we turn the old Arminian cry against them. What if someone wants to be saved but Christ did not foresee it? May they be saved? Must Christ repeat His sacrifice to allow them to be saved? It will suddenly be unfair to use that line of reasoning, I think we will be questioning the knowledge of God. As if the Arminian doesn't do this when he says that Christ died for everyone and anyone might be saved if they accept.
If we were to take this verse as the Arminian must take it, we are left with a quandary. How is it that men ever actually pay for their own sins? Do they pay for the very last sin they commit, and Christ takes the punishment for all the others? Do they get their sins back at the Judgment seat once it has been established that they never accepted Christ in life? How does the salvation transaction really work in Arminian thought? Why is this a problem for the Arminian?
It is a problem because in the Arminian scheme, Christ didn't actually do anything except die and rise again on the cross. Everything else is potential in the Arminian scheme. Christ potentially paid for sins. Thus it is possible that no one would accept Him and He died in vain. Christ didn't actually take any sin onto himself on the cross, for it was not known yet that anyone would take advantage of the sacrifice. All of the disciples fled, it was possible that none of them could have returned or believed that He had been raised from the dead.
But why is this verse so troublesome for Arminians? Because it presents God actively doing something with the expectation that an action will follow, namely repentance and justification. The verse presents God as not imputing sins to people, but as Paul says in Romans, reserving them. Now that Christ has paid for all of those sins, they are now worthless actions. It is not uncommon to hear Christians say that Christ paid for every sin you will or can commit. This is true, but the Arminian has no business saying it without qualifying that Christ hasn't actually paid for them until a person accepts the sacrifice given. How then is Christ not sacrificed again every time a person accepts Him? The quandary is inexcusable. We border on heresy to say that Christ is crucified every time a person is saved, yet the Arminian cannot explain how Christ actually died for all who would be saved and died for the possibility that every man could be saved.
We may say that Christ died for every person that would accept him. But how did He know which ones to die for? Foreknowledge, the Arminian says. Christ looked forward in time and saw each and every person who would ever accept His sacrifice and those He saw, He elected and died for. But then we turn the old Arminian cry against them. What if someone wants to be saved but Christ did not foresee it? May they be saved? Must Christ repeat His sacrifice to allow them to be saved? It will suddenly be unfair to use that line of reasoning, I think we will be questioning the knowledge of God. As if the Arminian doesn't do this when he says that Christ died for everyone and anyone might be saved if they accept.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)