The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—
(1) God saves (all);
(2) God fails to save (at least some); or
(3) God does not will to save (at least some).
The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or affliction/healing model of salvation. The trilemma holds in the face of any version of hell: e.g., temporary/purgative, everlasting punitive, or no hell at all.
Free-will arguments generally lead to (2). Calvinist double-predestination entails (3).
A great deal of theological and exegetical and apologetic ink has been spilled articulating/defending each possibility.
This trilemma stands at the heart of every soteriology and theodicy.
I argued for (1) extensively here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=66497&page=&page=7
I cited page 7 because that seems to be where Epi and I really started digging deep, but there are worthy posts before that. (My arguments might be different today, but I would still draw on much of the exegesis done in that thread). I won’t re-present my whole argument here.
In the course of that thread, the initial trilemma seemed to go underground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by vistesdFor what it is worth, my 2 cents.
The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—
(1) God saves (all);
(2) God fails to save (at least some); or
(3) God does not will to save (at least some).
The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or afflict ...[text shortened]... nderground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).
#1 is false.
#2 is close, but also false.
God does not fail. He expected some/many to not be saved.
True free will, requires a gamble. He knew that some would not believe, but still won many.
#3 is false, God wants all to be saved, but not all will.
Originally posted by vistesdI would add:
The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—
(1) God saves (all);
(2) God fails to save (at least some); or
(3) God does not will to save (at least some).
The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or afflict ...[text shortened]... nderground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).
(4) God provides the means for people to save themselves. That plus the observation that salvation is (largely) a collective effort, not an individual one.
Originally posted by checkbaiterIsn't that saying #3 is true? You're saying God does not want to save those who do not want to be saved.
For what it is worth, my 2 cents.
#1 is false.
#2 is close, but also false.
God does not fail. He expected some/many to not be saved.
True free will, requires a gamble. He knew that some would not believe, but still won many.
#3 is false, God wants all to be saved, but not all will.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo, God wants all to be saved, but because of free will, not all can be saved.
Isn't that saying #3 is true? You're saying God does not want to save those who do not want to be saved.
Many choose not to, and God honors that choice.
Originally posted by vistesd"The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—"
The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—
(1) God saves (all);
(2) God fails to save (at least some); or
(3) God does not will to save (at least some).
The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or affli ...[text shortened]... nderground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).
"(1) God saves (all)": who want to be saved, irrespective of gender; social status; wealth or poverty; political bias; religious affiliation; charitable giving or selfishness; record of criminal offenses or convictions; number of covert or overt sins committed; sexual orientation; life style or depth of degradation; or volume of previous rejections of his salvation offer; .
"2) God fails to save (at least some); or": all who have no interest in being saved, without respect of person [flinty hardness of attitude against or lackadaisical, passive dismissal of his gracious offer].
"3) God does not will to save (at least some).": God wills to save all but will not coerce the free will of any who have no interest in being saved [who may still change their minds at any time until their eventual death]. -Bob
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by rwingettGood point. He has set a standard already.
I would add:
(4) God provides the means for people to save themselves. That plus the observation that salvation is (largely) a collective effort, not an individual one.
"The wages of sin is death" So, people can pay for their own sins, but they die.
Originally posted by SwissGambitSG, let's say we're playing Chess OTB and after 38 moves you offer me a Gentlemen's Draw. I stubbornly say, "Nah, gb's got a win". After five more moves you Checkmate Center Board with a Pawn. My choice caused me to lose out on something I was offered. There's nothing you can do to change or save gb from the choice he made. Doesn't the metaphor hold?
God honors the choice by choosing not to save them. You can't escape the plain meaning of simple words, no matter how hard you try.
Originally posted by SuzianneBuild the kingdom. As a certain group of 42,000 people who start with an 'H' are doing. Salvation will come in this world, not in the next.
What did you have in mind then?
Someone whipping out a checkbook and asking "so, what will it take to get me into Heaven today?"