<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29716550.post3163530581149084001..comments</id><updated>2007-02-10T01:41:30.544-06:00</updated><title type='text'>Comments on Musings of a Seminary Washout: Daniel Hixon on Calvinism - Part 2</title><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://sadfpoixacsdiouy.blogspot.com/feeds/3163530581149084001/comments/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/29716550/3163530581149084001/comments/default'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://sadfpoixacsdiouy.blogspot.com/2007/02/daniel-hixon-on-calvinism-part-2.html'/><author><name>Brent Railey</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/11245491249481585988</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>2</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29716550.post-8322388953384608617</id><published>2007-02-10T02:07:00.000-06:00</published><updated>2007-02-10T02:07:00.000-06:00</updated><title type='text'>PS - I am of the opinion that "world" in John 3:16...</title><content type='html'>PS - I am of the opinion that "world" in John 3:16 should be taken as literally as possible (once again I argue for literal) to mean "cosmos" - the whole universe - Christ is redeeming the entire creation that is "groaning in waiting" and has been "subjected to futility" (see Rom. 8).  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Furthermore the idea that salvation is not intended for all runs counter to the symmetry of Paul's argument in Romans 5 and other places: just as sin came to "all" (as you say, literally here) through one man (Adam), so salvation comes to "all" (as I say, literally there) through one man (Christ).  It seems odd to argue the word means one thing in the first half of the argument but something else in the second - that is to say that the bad news is somehow bigger or more comprehensive than the good news!  I think salvation does come to all through Christ - though, as I say, many resist it and are therefore damned (because I also reject TULIP's "I").  They have committed the damning "sin against the Holy Spirit" by refusing his universal call to salvation.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;And also on the bit about Pharaoh's heart being hardened it is important to note (as Paul well knows) that in the actual Exodus narrative it usually says simply "his heart was hardened" using a passive so that the agent doing the hardening is unclear.  At times it specifically says that God hardened his heart (as you note) but it also says (Calvinists don't often note this) that Pharaoh harded his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32) - so that this becomes precisely an example of the sort of "mystical" or "paradoxical" double agency (on the individual level) that I am trying to affirm -so it is sort of the anti-type to Phil. 2:12-13 where we are called upon to work out our own salvation precisely because it is God working in us.  With Pharaoh we have the same idea, but working in the opposite direction.</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/29716550/3163530581149084001/comments/default/8322388953384608617'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/29716550/3163530581149084001/comments/default/8322388953384608617'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://sadfpoixacsdiouy.blogspot.com/2007/02/daniel-hixon-on-calvinism-part-2.html?showComment=1171094820000#c8322388953384608617' title=''/><author><name>Daniel McLain Hixon</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09314281652215835311</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://sadfpoixacsdiouy.blogspot.com/2007/02/daniel-hixon-on-calvinism-part-2.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29716550.post-3163530581149084001' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/29716550/posts/default/3163530581149084001' type='text/html'/></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29716550.post-2459600078144352728</id><published>2007-02-10T01:41:00.000-06:00</published><updated>2007-02-10T01:41:00.000-06:00</updated><title type='text'>"Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is des...</title><content type='html'>"Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16." &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;I remain unconvinced.  How can you know when to interpret literally and when not to?  It literally says "all."  Of course Calvinists are more generous in allowing that "all" means "all" when it supports the (presupposed) TULIP theological schema.  How convenient.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;I hope my sarcasm dosn't come across too harsh.  I realize this comes from an attempt to understand and organize the Bible's teachings comprehensively.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Apart from the issue of whether or not the verse means what it literally says there is the issue of whether predestination is individual or corporate.  My complaints against TULIP are directed at an individualistic understanding (i.e. God elected Bob and Fran and Lacy, etc.).  I remain intrigued by the idea that predestination (for salvation) is probably communal rather than individualistic - just as Israel as a whole people was predestined for its own vocation in salvation history.  The question then becomes whether or not we are a part of that people - whether we are integrated into that Kingdom people and given that new identity as one among "many brothers."  That seems more consistent to me with a pre-modern anthropology (as part of our worldview, perhaps taken for granted), which all of the Biblical writers shared - and which we in the West do not share with them by default.  If I remember right, I tried to talk a little bit (and probably did a poor and unclear job) about individualistic vs. corporate understandings of election toward the end of my original post.  People in the West have tended to think in individualistic terms for several centuries now, which shades the way we think theologically of course - but in Ancient Israel they did not see the world as we do.  SO (I'd have to think this through longer) at first glance I think I would have no problem saying God unconditionally elected the Church as the community of faith - but individuals are included in that election conditionally - insofar as they have that faith and are a part of that covenant community.</content><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/29716550/3163530581149084001/comments/default/2459600078144352728'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/29716550/3163530581149084001/comments/default/2459600078144352728'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://sadfpoixacsdiouy.blogspot.com/2007/02/daniel-hixon-on-calvinism-part-2.html?showComment=1171093260000#c2459600078144352728' title=''/><author><name>Daniel McLain Hixon</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09314281652215835311</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author><thr:in-reply-to xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0' href='http://sadfpoixacsdiouy.blogspot.com/2007/02/daniel-hixon-on-calvinism-part-2.html' ref='tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29716550.post-3163530581149084001' source='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/29716550/posts/default/3163530581149084001' type='text/html'/></entry></feed>