1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
YOUR WISDOM GETS LOST ON 98% HERE -atrol:
I know it.
Hopefully the question will get some thinking anyway.
John Calvin said this....
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
I know it.
Hopefully the question will get some thinking anyway.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
YOUR WISDOM GETS LOST ON 98% HERE -
likin' yer avatar today,bro.:cheers:
Well, you have a distorted view of the difference between murder
and killing. I'm not surprised though. After all you're a "Hyper-
Calvinist fanatic." You view God as being the cause of all sin in
the world.
DL, I have rearranged the order of your post so as to comment on themes.
Another thing is that it is completely impractical to discuss everyone's particular belefs, as they are myriad. At some point you have to nail your colours to the mast and say 'This is what I believe. It isn't an exact fit, but for the sake of having a discussion, we can use this.' One of my lecturers (I went to a largely reformed theological college) once said that most Christians' private beliefs are heretical. That's a very upsetting statement! So it is both a convenience and a discipline to discuss the beliefs of a prominent teacher or theologian. Or creed or statement of faith. This is why I have asked you to clarify what set of beliefs you would be happy to debate.
It is good to acknowledge that your belief system may change and/or is changing. But at some point, you have got to be able to justify the beliefs that you presently have. And in order to do that you have got to make public those beliefs. It isn't merely unfortunate that your beliefs are called Calvinistic. Calvin was an acknowledged founding influence on what we now call Calvinism. Therefore it seems appropriate to discuss his views. I don't see how you can say that such a discussion is illegitimate.
Another thing is that it is completely impractical to discuss everyone's particular belefs, as they are myriad. At some point you have to nail your colours to the mast and say 'This is what I believe. It isn't an exact fit, but for the sake of having a discussion, we can use this.' One of my lecturers (I went to a largely reformed theological college) once said that most Christians' private beliefs are heretical. That's a very upsetting statement! So it is both a convenience and a discipline to discuss the beliefs of a prominent teacher or theologian. Or creed or statement of faith. This is why I have asked you to clarify what set of beliefs you would be happy to debate.
I have a big problem with this. As I said (perhaps too pertly) to CedarWood, debating scripture quotations is endless. Check out my 1-1 with Lon a few years ago and you cannot fail to notice the gross divide over what the Bible says and how it should be interpreted. I would say that almost every single scripture passage quoted by Calvinists to support the 5 principles of TULIP has been misinterpreted by them. Here is common ground: we all believe that God's wisdom is reasonable (open to reason). As Jesus says, those who walk in the light walk in the day so that their deeds will be visible. In the same way, those who teach the truth, are open to reason. We believe that God's truth is open to reason. Is that common ground? Can you accept this? If so, then the issue is not whether scripture supports your view or not. We can all get the Bible to agree with our point of view. The primary issue is whether or not our beliefs are in themselves rational and coherent, not whether they conform to scripture. Being rational and coherent does not necessarily make them true but it is a start. Being rational and coherent does however, every time, engender respect. Indeed, the dogged insistence on proof texting one's beliefs, is for me a sure sign that the promoter of the beliefs is using scripture as a crutch because the beliefs themselves do not survive the test of rationality and coherence. That does not engender respect in me and I generally ignore discussions that look like this. And I am sure that a lot of people on this forum and Calvinists elsewhere will definitely not accept this as common ground. They will say that God's truth is not open to reason or debate and they expect me to accept what they say as Gospel without question, and further, they think that I am being sinful or heretical if I dare question what they say. And of course, lastly, they say that I am really questioning what God says and it would never enter their minds that they could be wrong since they believe that their own beliefs are from God. Their inability to discuss their beliefs rationally and to demonstrate coherence is the sure sign that they themselves are walking in darkness.
Thanks for that.
So for you, the 5 points are the core of your belief system? So we can discuss those at some point and I can assume that you believe all of them? If so, then thanks for being clear about it and nailing your colours where they belong.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity" (Isa.13:9-11).
Interplanner
Well-known member
WE shouldn't find passages to support a set of doctrines. The passages themselves should contain such important, self-organizing theses. Then there is nothing to debate.
Shasta
Well-known member
Historically then who were these wolves? In the early part of the first century they were the Judaizers. As the numbers of Jews in the Church declined other forces moved in to bring a different kind of deception based not on Judaism but on a combination of Platonic philosophy and Eastern mysticism. These were the various factions known under the rubric of Gnosticism
What did the Gnostics teach? Did they teach against fundamental ideas of Reformed Theology like predeterminism and inability? Was it they who brought into the Church heretical ideas about freewill and conditional election? Far from it! The Gnostics taught that only certain people were the select chosen not by their own will but by predetermination to be carriers of divine light. John the Apostle speaks against this doctrine in his first epistle. The Early Church Fathers of the Second Century explicitly renounced such notions as predeterminism and "inability" as originating from paganism.
The first generation of ECF were taught by the Apostles. The second was taught by their students and so on. These disagree with the fundamentals of what would one day be called Augustinianism and later Calvinism. If you accept what the ECF wrote as accurate reflections of what they were taught not one petal of TULIP will remain on the stem.
To make your theory true, all teaching similar to reformed doctrine would have had to have been spirited away within a single generation and replaced throughout all Christendom by doctrines antagonistic to those taught later by Calvin. This would have been impossible. The Church did not have enough centralized power at that time to suppress information on that scale. In fact, the practice of the early days was to preserve heretical writings for study and apologetic work.
Outside of speculation and theory, the historic record does not support the notion that there was a branch of orthodoxy around who believed anything like "Reformed Doctrine" Whenever the ECF commented on issues related to "TULIP" they were in opposition to its core principles.
Again, who were the wolves? The most likely candidates are the Gnostics but their doctrines bore similarities to that of Augustine (and Calvin). They certainly did not teach freewill! Were the wolves the ECFs themselves? That's a sinister thought. If so, though, if Paul and the other Apostles could not even pass the correct doctrine on to 1-3 generations then they were certainly miserable failures as Apostles.
Augustine was ignorant of what others before him had written because he could not read what the Greek speaking fathers had written, nor could he read the scriptures in the original Greek. I have thought that he might have benefited by consulting with someone across the Mediterranean who was a gifted exegete, who could read the scriptures in the original language and who was a spiritually more mature man - John Chrysostom. However I do not imagine Augustine to be the kind of man that would confer with someone else over matters of truth.
Augustine's lack of proficiency in Greek led him to "discover" such novel doctrines as Infant baptism, original sin (that we are personally held responsible for Adam's rejection of God) and infant damnation. Augustine's doctrines did not restrain him from using violence to coerce people into submission. He reasoned that he had a right to do it because the master in Jesus' parable ordered his servants to COMPEL people to come to the Wedding Feast. Ultimately Augustine's views prevailed in the West because he did use force and because He consolidated the Church's control over the flow of information. The people of his time breathed deeply of the "pure" air of his doctrines and ultimately found it to be toxic.
Last edited:
I've taken to not reading your posts any longer for the most part, and the above tripe is a great example of why that is.
A previous post of yours I attributed to a mental disorder, as though you couldn't be blamed for the dysfunctional nature of your brain. That was probably too generous on my part because the above quoted portion of your post amounts to a flat out intentional lie.
I have poisoned no well! I have directly quoted Calvin himself AND provided the source of those quotes so that anyone who was interested could easily look the quote up and discover that they are not "taking pot shots at out-of-context quotes from Calvin". On the contrary, the things I've quoted are not merely quotes of Calvin, they ARE CALVINISM!!!
Further, I've said not one word about Calvin himself! Others have but I have intentionally stayed away from discussing Calvin's moral character. Not that it wouldn't be permissible to do so, by the way, but merely and precisely because I didn't want to give less than intellectually honest Calvinists an excuse to ignore the point of the thread which is very simply that we anti-Calvinists are constantly accused of misrepresenting Calvinism and in an effort to rebut that accusation, I've taken quotes, not just from the horses mouth but from source documents that Calvinism itself is based upon and is defined by and thereby shown that the things we say that Calvinism teaches are the very things its founder plainly stated.
You can deny it all you like but if you call yourself a Calvinist, the things I've quoted from Calvin are part and parcel of that which you profess to believe. If you want to stop calling yourself a Calvinist then fine but make no mistake about it, the embarrassing things Calvin said he believed are derived logically from the basic presuppositions that the whole of Calvinism is derived from. You don't get to cherry pick the logical derivations you like and throw away the rest because it makes you want throw up a little in your mouth when you say them out loud. If you don't like the things I've quoted, you don't like the doctrine of absolute divine immutability (and several others) because that is the premise from which they and the rest of Calvinism are irrefutably derived.
Resting in Him,
Clete
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
The wolves were orthodox catholicism.
The emulators of our true faith.
Not Judaizers slash aka gnostics.
I've posted this here too many times for you people.
Read the letter from Clement to Corinth.
You all shore live up to Revelation saying you're here to wear out the Saints.
Trinitarianism as well as all other isms are a butt load.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
glorydaz
Well-known member
You really should invest in a pair of glasses. Maybe some bifocals?
Cedarbay
New member
They've been refuted????
Cedarbay
New member
Please consider taking a look at this work regarding Total Depravity, as it helps to understand the teaching in its entirety.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/depravity_nook.html
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
No, not particularly.
I like the quote though!
I invite you to post a thread with quotes of John Sanders if you like!
All it takes for a Calvinist to "COMPLETELY thrash" someone is to redefine any word or phrase necessary to complete the task and pray for an audience that doesn't notice.
moparguy
New member
I am under no compulsion to follow calvin where he is not in line with what God's word, the bible, teaches. I know of literally nobody that follows calvin substantially who think they should follow him and not God where the two differ.
Yes, God is bigger than sin, and turns it to morally good ends.
Shockingly, God doesn't fit the human-centered box we all want to stuff him in.
Golly, you could have done better by digging up the luther quotes on the topic.
Just a repetition of the same topic of the first quote. Same answer.
----
Are amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Micah 1:12 not in the bible? Or do you simply not believe the bible is true, or use principals that require you treat the bible as if it was not true?
If God had not have created, there could have been no evil; do you think God is not creator? If God had not have made the angels, there would be no lucifer. If God had not made adam, there would have been no fall. Did God create neither lucifer or Adam? Did God not know there would be evil? If he didn't know, how could have have been right to have created? If God knows everything that can be known, and created, than the discussion doesn't evaporate.
One either is bible believing and must deal with the language in a Godly way or introduce positions and principals on the topic that destroy the truth of the bible.
God is not responsible for evil for the same reason creation happened and we exist: because he is the definer of WHAT IS. God says he is not responsible; therefore he is not responsible; because he has said he is not. By his very nature he cannot be wrong. God is the definer, man is not. God says we are responsible for the evil we do; for the mere reason that he has said we are responsible, we are responsible, and deserving of punishment.
God has also told us that he is not evil: therefore, he is not evil. Psalm 136:1 and etc.
The Bible teaches that God has not only decreed evil, and that all evil happens exactly according to his plan, but that had God not created, there *could be no evil.*
Without created moral agents there could be no evil.
Or do you prefer that evil be bigger than God, that it be ultimately pointless and random, that it not serve the ultimate good? Should the murder of millions and millions by governments and societies be ultimately just random out of control not for any ultimate good events, that a nigh-hopeless God is incapable of turning to the ultimate good?
That God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned NOT according to the merits of the ones so chosen is purely biblical; Romans 9:11-18.
Or would you prefer that your loved ones who die unsaved die unsaved because they had a bad pizza just before they had the gospel shared with them? Do you want to be responsible for not sharing the gospel with them in a convincing enough manner? Do you want God to play favorites and pick people because of some merits in them, when God has clearly indicated that all in adam (romans 5) are by nature sinners (romans 1-3)?
Yes, God is bigger than sin, and turns it to morally good ends.
Shockingly, God doesn't fit the human-centered box we all want to stuff him in.
Golly, you could have done better by digging up the luther quotes on the topic.
Just a repetition of the same topic of the first quote. Same answer.
----
Are amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Micah 1:12 not in the bible? Or do you simply not believe the bible is true, or use principals that require you treat the bible as if it was not true?
If God had not have created, there could have been no evil; do you think God is not creator? If God had not have made the angels, there would be no lucifer. If God had not made adam, there would have been no fall. Did God create neither lucifer or Adam? Did God not know there would be evil? If he didn't know, how could have have been right to have created? If God knows everything that can be known, and created, than the discussion doesn't evaporate.
One either is bible believing and must deal with the language in a Godly way or introduce positions and principals on the topic that destroy the truth of the bible.
God is not responsible for evil for the same reason creation happened and we exist: because he is the definer of WHAT IS. God says he is not responsible; therefore he is not responsible; because he has said he is not. By his very nature he cannot be wrong. God is the definer, man is not. God says we are responsible for the evil we do; for the mere reason that he has said we are responsible, we are responsible, and deserving of punishment.
God has also told us that he is not evil: therefore, he is not evil. Psalm 136:1 and etc.
The Bible teaches that God has not only decreed evil, and that all evil happens exactly according to his plan, but that had God not created, there *could be no evil.*
Without created moral agents there could be no evil.
Or do you prefer that evil be bigger than God, that it be ultimately pointless and random, that it not serve the ultimate good? Should the murder of millions and millions by governments and societies be ultimately just random out of control not for any ultimate good events, that a nigh-hopeless God is incapable of turning to the ultimate good?
That God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned NOT according to the merits of the ones so chosen is purely biblical; Romans 9:11-18.
Or would you prefer that your loved ones who die unsaved die unsaved because they had a bad pizza just before they had the gospel shared with them? Do you want to be responsible for not sharing the gospel with them in a convincing enough manner? Do you want God to play favorites and pick people because of some merits in them, when God has clearly indicated that all in adam (romans 5) are by nature sinners (romans 1-3)?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually the key aspect of Reformed theology is the view that Scripture plainly teaches the sovereignty of God. Everything else about Reformed theology follows from that starting point. Wherever differences between the Reformed view and non-Reformed views emerge, it can invariably be traced back to a dilution of this key point.
For example, with the open theists—a minority movement—you have the Survivor God, outwitting, outlasting, and outplaying His apparently autonomous moral agents as He learns more and more by learning what they do, for God cannot truly know what they will do until the do it (the future is unknown). God can only predict their choices—of course with ivory soap level percentages, ninety-nine, and forty-four over one hundred percent—since God is really, really smart. For these folks, the God of Moses truly knows less than God today as God is continually accreting knowledge and adjusting His plan A, B, etc., while He keeps up with the billions of contingencies developing each moment by the so-called free will choices of His autonomous moral agents.
With all others—e.g., the soteriological synergists of Arminianism and Romanism—God is merely peeking ahead in time before actualizing creation to see what His so-called autonomous moral agents will do when presented with the Good News. God then effectively "rubber stamps" their decision, thus making God a contingent debtor based upon the decisions of those He created.
Both groups dilute the sovereignty of God with all manner of rationalization that is nothing more than placing Him in the Dock for cross-examination according to what His pitiful finite creatures think He should be like and act like, creating more theological dilemmas than they think they are solving with these peculiar views.
The Reformed would rather be as was the Prophet who lamented upon a mere glimpse of He who reigns with sceptre in hand disposing of His creation as He sees fit, "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."
AMR
Shasta
Well-known member
1. You claim that the "wolves" were immediately at the door and entered into the Church as soon as the Apostles died In fact, orthodox catholicism did not spring into existence immediately after the death of Paul and Peter. It developed slowly over many centuries. This scenario simply does not meet the demands of this passage.
2. Furthermore, if you think Catholicism was this archetypal pack of "wolves" the emulators of the faith then I do not see why you are such a fan of Augustine. He was a major player in consolidating the control of the Church in the West. What you call the "breath of fresh air" was actually the first whiff incense from the newly developing Church of Rome. Oddly enough, Augustine was not only the main source of doctrine for the Orthodox Catholic Church but for Luther and Calvin. It follows because both of them were devoted students of Augustine.
2. "All other isms are a 'buttload'"
Then this would have also have to be true for Anti-TrinitrianISM.
3. I do not know who you mean by "you people" Maybe you think I am a Catholic. I am not. Frankly I do not know what you mean.
4. I have read the letter of Clement. If you have a specific point to make about it then feel free to state what that is. Do not expect me to make inferences on it based upon your ideas about what it says.
5. You all shore live up to Revelation saying you're here to wear out the Saints.
I have been speaking of historical matters. Does this make me an agent of the antichrist? Perhaps it would be more Christlike to suppress history and engage in the enterprise of Reformed or Catholic myth-making.