tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post7114348583525590171..comments2023-09-27T05:12:31.333-04:00Comments on Ancient Christian Witness: What is Determinism?Jnormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-57628381099204150292011-03-23T23:32:36.547-04:002011-03-23T23:32:36.547-04:00The book is from a protestant Arminian source. &qu...The book is from a protestant Arminian source. "Why I am not a Calvinist" I could be wrong but I think one of the authors teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary......near you. I was trying to find another book by a free will Baptist, but I'm not able to find it.<br />http://www.amazon.com/Grace-Faith-Free-Robert-Picirilli/dp/0892656484<br /><br />He defines the term as well. Then the other book "Why I am not an Arminian" might....I didn't look at it yet. Then there was gonna be a bunch of web links I was gonna post from monergism.com as well.<br /><br /><br /><br />How would it eschatologically effect <b>all</b> in your view? And why would the Incarnation only ontologically effect a few? How would that work? I know you are trying to avoid universalism, but how would that work ontologically?<br /><br />For us, the difference between the few and the all is the Church. When we look at Ephesians we see that Jesus is the head of the Church, and so not only are we connected <b>with</b> Him by way of the Incarnation, but in a much deeper way we are connected <b>in</b> Him by way of Water Baptism (Union with Christ / Being In Him) <br /><br />And when we feed <b>on</b> Him with the Eucharist. This is the difference between the few and the all.<br /><br /><br />What I'm about to say next <b>maybe flawed,</b> but at this point in time it would seem as if the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ is for all. While the <b>application</b> of the Death of Christ washes away the sins of the repentant and believing community...and since this is linked with Baptism.....it goes back to the issue of the Church and Christ being it's head. Don't hold me to this for it's possible that I might adjust this in the future.......as I learn more. But at this point in time.....this is what I'm seeing.Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-59715787045441264702011-03-22T21:13:29.414-04:002011-03-22T21:13:29.414-04:00Methinks the issues in this debate falls back on t...Methinks the issues in this debate falls back on the view of the atonement which reflects the quantitative nature of the incarnation. Did Christ take all of generic human nature as a platonic idea in order to raise it in the incarnation or was his incarnation something more localized? When Maximus is cornered and has the options of a will at the level of nature implying a raised nature and a compelled natural will and all wills with it, ergo universal salvation, or will at the level of hypostasis and the same conclusion, he has to make the gnomic disticntion. But what if Christ's incarnation only ontologically effects a few and eschatalogically effects all? Then the Monothelete dilema is squelched.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8836001125267727609.post-92026555313000365372011-03-22T19:01:17.032-04:002011-03-22T19:01:17.032-04:00What book was that from?What book was that from?Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.com