The Anglican Scotist, who has been one of the bloggers most involved in the current spate of discussions regarding Communion without Baptism, browsed through the old T19 links on the issue which we posted in the comments to this blog entry on Tuesday. The Scotist noted Ephraim Radner’s May 2005 essay on the subject and has now issued a reply to Radner.
For those of you interested in these discussions:
— Ephraim Radner’s article on the ACI website is here (the old T19 comment thread is here).
On glancing at the Scotist’s site I am left with the reaction as to why bother to be a Christian at all? And what I see, is a drive an the part of the Scotist and other like thinkers to completely remake Christianity from the ground up.
I don’t see this as much of a response. He’s picking at what he sees are Fr. Radner’s errors but, IMHO, AS does a poor job of explaining why they are errors. Worse yet, I see almost no proposal for the merits of CWOB. He uses lots of colorful hyperbole but, as I have observed with most revisionist argumentation, he lacks an honest alternative.
Why must everything be up for grabs? Who are these people who think they know better than the Apostles and Fathers of the Church? Where is their authority?
The argument has been running for several days now, over a dozen posts or so; here is my main point in review, as briefly as possible:
[A1] (1) If CWOB is forbidden, God is not omnipotent.
(2) God is omnipotent.
Thus, (3) CWOB is permitted.
For the first premise, [A1](1):
[A2] (1) Suppose CWOB is forbidden.
(2) If CWOB is forbidden, then God cannot save all human beings.
(3) If God is omnipotent, then God can save all human beings.
Thus, (4) God is not omnipotent.
For the second premise of the second argument, [A2](2):
[A3] (1) If God can save all humans beings, we are obligated to hope that God does save all human beings.
(2) If we are permitted to hope that God does save all human beings, then CWOB is permitted.
(3) Suppose CWOB is forbidden.
Thus, (4) God cannot save all human beings.
And the key point connecting omnipotence and the possibility of universalism [A2](3):
[A*]
1. Suppose God is omnipotent.
2. If (1), then whatever God does by means of a creature, God can do immediately.
Thus, (3) whatever God does by means of a creature, God can do immediately.
Radner addresses none of this; so far as I can see, his writing in that piece misses an opportunit yto engage with the core issue: the Creeds commit us to God’s Omnipotence, and Omnipotence commits us to CWOB.
QED
You might say discussion of CWOB–arguably near the core of anyone’s Christian orthodoxy–is a casuality of our obsessions with sex.
your arguments leave out one very important point: free will.
God wills that everyone should be saved, but will not abrogate Man’s freedom to chose otherwise. That doesn’t prove God is NOT omnipotent, but shows that His love is so great He limits Himself from forcing us to come, but allows us to come to Him ourselves.
Secondly, God Himself has set up a system whereby Man may be saved. We still have that blasted free will to choose to abide by His plan or reject it.
Third, God has declared that ONLY those who come to Him by His own plan are to be considered His children, and are bidden to come to His table in communion with Him. One of the requirements for that “communion” is “wash up before dinner, kids!” — Baptism.
That’s simply Christianity 101.
Sure–free will is a real issue here.
But you would agree, I take it, that we do not want to be Arminians or Pelagians about the will. Apart from grace there is very little–if any–good we can do.
I am neither a Pelagian nor an Arminian. I believe that God has a plan for us, yes, but I also believe we can choose NOT to follow that plan. Or, to quote C. S. Lewis:
[blockquote]The goal towards which (God) is beginning to guide you is absolute perfection; and no power in the whole universe, except you yourself, can prevent Him from taking you to that goal.” (Mere Christianity)[/blockquote]
and Richard Foster:
[blockquote]We can stop our growing conformity to Christ at any point. God in His wisdom and sovereign freedom hs given us veto power ver our own formation. This is the dignity he bestows upon us a free moral agents. And the Spirit is most patient, waiting for us to come to our senses and see the goodness of rightness.” (Streams of Living Water” pg. 89)[/blockquote]
Neither of these writers can be accused of pelagianism. Both in early passages stress that grace and salvation and holiness are gifts from God, given because we cannot be good enough on our own to [i]earn[/i] the salvation, grace and holiness God offers.
Peace
Jim Elliott
Spelling corrections, for those who can’t figure out what I meant. The errors were mine, not in the original. It’s difficult to hold a book open while one is trying to type:
We can stop our growing conformity to Christ at any point. God in His wisdom and sovereign freedom has given us veto power over our own formation. This is the dignity He bestows upon us as free moral agents. And the Spirit is most patient, waiting for us to come to our senses and see the goodness of rightness.†(Streams of Living Water†pg. 89) :red:
Anyway, allow me to recommend this book for further reading. the full title is:
Streams of Living Water: Celebrating the great traditions of Christian Faith. Published by Harper, ISBN 0060628227 $15.00, large (aka “Trade”) paperback.