Saturday, November 10, 2007

Kyle Reese v. Arminian Jesus

In the movie The Terminator, John Connor - leader of the human resistance - sent sergeant Kyle Reese "into the word" of 1984. He was sent to save Sarah Connor. That was his mission. He didn't fail. Indeed, he gave his life for her, his friend.

In the story told in John's gospel, Jehovah - the LORD of all - sent his son Jesus "into the world" of the 1st century.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Jesus' mission - the save the world. Yeah, sure, sergeant Reese only had to save one person, but then again, sergeant Reese isn't the Theanthropos. Reese isn't God. (Although, a case can be made that Reese did save mankind, the whole world, by saving Connor. This makes the situation worse!) So, the number needing salvation balances out by the weight of the one doing the saving. Jesus failed, and he even died for all of them.

So, Reese was "sent into the world" to save and he succeeded. Jesus was "sent into the world" to save, and he failed.

Well, he failed if we assume Arminian soteriology anyway...


  1. So the Terminator of Terminator 1 is the Calvinist Jesus. He comes to save Sarah Conner alone, his "elect." The Terminator in Terminator 2 is like the real Jesus, and sacrifices himself to save the whole world (he lowers himself into the molten steel to make sure all Terminator technology is destroyed and nobody cane remake them).

  2. Anonymous,

    The Terminator in T1 came to kill Sarah Connor, not save her.

    If you saw T3 then you'd know that in T2 some of the technology wasn't totally destroyed. So he's like the Arminian Jesus....faield again. Finally, the Terminator didn't have free will. That's not gonna get you far with the Arminians. You just said the 'real Jesus" was a robot.

  3. Anonymous,

    So the Calvinist Jesus completed his mission and the "real Jesus" failed at his?

  4. Anonymous,

    Say T2 saved the world. Since there are people going to hell, Jesus failed. He lowered himself into the molten steel, and people still go to hell. So, granting your assumptions, T2 is more successful than the Arminian Jesus.

  5. It's interesting to interpret one fiction (e.g., The Terminator) in terms of another fiction (e.g., the gospel stories).

  6. Being Arminian, I don't see the correlation between the Terminator and the Arminian view of Jesus. If you are trying to make a case for limited atonement, this was a poor analogy.

  7. Nemesis,

    I could have just as easily used stories about Momma Nature and the "survival of the fittest" if you wish?

    The Seeking Disciples,

    It was between Kyle Reese and the Arminian Jesus. Reese was not a terminator.

    Anyway, the correlation had to do with "being sent to save" and "accomplishing that mission. reese succeded, your Jesus failed. I don't get what's so controversial about that? You admit Jesus "was sent" to "save the world" and you also admit, I'm assuming, that not all are saved. Thus, Jesus didn't succeed in his mission.

  8. I could have just as easily used stories about Momma Nature and the "survival of the fittest" if you wish?

    No, Paul, stick with comparative fiction. Just keep blogging, whatever you do. With blogs like Triablogue, the atheist community can simply sit back, relax, and enjoy.

  9. Anonymouse,

    "With blogs like Triablogue, the atheist community can simply sit back, relax, and enjoy."

    Is that what members of your "community" Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are doing? Is that what your buddy John Loftus is doing? Is that what your friends "The Rational Response Squad" are doing? Better hurry up and get the word out to all the members of your "community" who are franticly scurrying to "refute" the evils of Religion that they can just "sit back, relax, and enjoy." We're here, and I don't see anyone from your community sitting back, relaxing, and enjoying anything. Shoot, it looks like Chris Hitchens is always three sheets to the wind, unshaven, and red faced due to not breathing so that he can rage and decry "Religion" as "not great." So, why aren't the sheeple in your community relaxed?

    Thanks anonymouse, with atheist commenters like you, living up to your community's grand example of making claims inconsistent with reality, us T-bloggers wouldn't have anything to laugh about when we privately correspond. You're a real hoot. A knee-slapper. As Uncle Jessie, another member of your community, would say: HAW HAW HAW, you guys are the most hyper "relaxed" people we've ever seen. If this is you guys "sitting back and relaxed I'd hate to see you "standing up and excited. HAW HAW HAW."


  10. I'm with you, Paul!

    God chose me brother!

    Whoo hoo!

    Atheists = dum dums!

    Those atheist fools (just like the bible calls 'em!) are gonna fry baby!

    HAW HAW HAW!!!!

  11. That pic bears a striking resemblance to Peter Pike.

    As for hillbillies being atheists, I wonder what the statistics are. Hillbillies tend to stuff churches, which are everywhere in the southern states.

  12. Anonymous said...
    That pic bears a striking resemblance to Peter Pike.

    Pike is a male. Are you saying Pike looks like your mother?

    "As for hillbillies being atheists, I wonder what the statistics are. Hillbillies tend to stuff churches, which are everywhere in the southern states."

    I wonder too, but we do know from that picture that the ugliest person on the planet is an atheist.

  13. Pike is a male.

    Prove it.

  14. Anonymous said...
    Pike is a male.

    Prove it.

    11/11/2007 8:12 PM

    You would want someone to wouldn't you, you sicko.

  15. Paul,

    It has always seemed strange to me to hear "Jesus failed!" James White says it aLOT (I know b/c I'm a groupie and have great respect for him) but it always makes me frown and furrow my forehead.

    What would be wrong with saying the following?

    Jesus came in order "to seek and save that which was lost."
    1) All men are lost, for one thing. 2) But even besides that, why would someone not being saved mean that He failed? Why not say that He came in order that all who come might be saved? It's not as if He's exerting (remember, this is the "Arminian assumption", as you'd call it) an irresistible influence on everyone. He's made the opportunity open for salvation AND provided full atonement for sin AND sent His Holy Spirit to "convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment". He accomplished all those things, but He somehow fails in irresistibly bringing everyone to salvation when He's not exerting irresistible influence?

    What are your thoughts on that?


  16. Rhology,

    1) Because John 3:17 said Jesus was sent "not to condemn the world, but to save the world." Let's rephrase that with the "Arminian Assumption :-) John 3:17 says that Jesus was sent not to condemn every single person individually, but to save every single person individually. That's what he was sent to do. he accomplished the first part, viz, he didn't condemn anyone. But, since some will go to hell, the second part won't be accomplished. he was sent to save everyone, not everyone will be saved, his mission wasn't a success according to its own terms.

    2) We should also talk about the *intent* of that atonement you bring up. What was the *purpose* or the *intent* behind his death "for everyone whoever?" Was it to save them?

    3) I discussed this with Arminian Roberthenrytheanonymouslurker before:

    starting at comment

    9/25/2007 7:44 PM

    4) if you want to say that Jesus came to save all those that come to him, then you need to deal with this:

    John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up on the last day.

    So, if you add your caveat to John 6:44 then you have, as Emeril would say, BAM!, Calvinism. (Note: Not all could be drawn since then all would be raies on the last day.)

  17. I'm reading that previous interaction link. Thanks.

    Quick question:

    No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up on the last day.

    Why is the "them" of "raise them up" not the "no one can come" at the beginning rather than the "them" of the "draws them"?

    ie - *Those who come* are the ones raised up rather than the ones who are drawn being raised up.
    See what I'm saying?
    That's clearly a major plank of your argument, as I'm sure you'd agree...

  18. rhology,

    If I understand you correctly. Why are you putting the two groups -the drawn and the raised up- in two different groups? They are the same.

    Check out James White's exegesis of John 6.


  19. Not sure what happened to the hyperlink.


  20. Sorry JohnMark,

    I was asking how it's justifiable to make all three "them"s or "the one"s the same group.
    Was wondering out loud if maybe the "one who comes" is the one raised up rather than the one who is drawn.

    Does that make sense?
    And yeah, I'll check out Dr White's presentation. I've seen it before, was wondering if anyone here had anythg to add...

  21. Rhology,

    I misquoted. "Them" isn't in the text. "Him" is the appropriate word.

    The "him' who comes is the "him" raised up. Otherwise the two "hims" are different hims. But notice what the text says about a him who comes. It says NO ONE CAN come to Jesus UNLESS the Father draws that one.

    So, only those who are drawn "CAN" come. And.... [Jesus] will raise the drawn one up on the last day.