What could have beens?

Jan 19, 2012 21:54

I recently had the opportunity to think about what-could-have-beens. I generally fear thinking about what-could-have-beens because it makes me sad to compare that with what-is's. It makes me afraid that failure to seize or treasure what-could-have-beens mean that I would never experience such things again. But then it struck me, thats pretty silly ( Read more... )

life

Leave a comment

Comments 4

anivad January 20 2012, 13:18:34 UTC
I adhere more closely to Arminianism, so this isn't relevant to me and I may have the facts wrong: but doesn't the Calvinist concept of election still involve personal choice? e.g. predestination isn't so much predestination as God knowing the future ahead of time, including the choices you would make. So there's no cause and effect, since everything that has happened and will happen is already known to God from the start.

Such that the only way for you not to be saved would be if you somehow give up your salvation, either because you stop believing or something else, which would mean you were never elect to begin with.

I might be confusing this with something else, though.

Reply

wispen January 24 2012, 09:32:38 UTC
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what the Calvinist concept of election is (or whether that is what I believe in), but I guess the concept I believe in is that there is a God-element, where he has a set group of people who have been given the metaphoric golden ticket, and the personal choice comes in as to whether you want to accept the golden ticket or not. Yeah, so the worry would be that I won't/can't get saved because I was never elect to begin with.

Reply

anivad January 24 2012, 14:39:10 UTC
Interesting; I don't think I've heard that theory before. The Calvinist version has the elect have their salvation confirmed from the start, and never be able to lose it.What do you then make of the Biblical claim that Christ died for all?

Reply

wispen January 24 2012, 15:30:23 UTC
Not sure if I'm making everything up, because I'm a bit too pressed for time to dig up proof of it, but I guess I understand the claim that "Christ died for all" the same way Ratatouille understood "Anyone can cook". The "All" refers more to a lack of discrimination between types/groups/races of people, e.g. he didn't die to save the Jews, but to save all types of people (inclusive of gentiles).

Reply


Leave a comment

Up