[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What does this mean?
Proverbs 16:33[quote]The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.[/quote][/quote]
What do they mean when they say He who keeps the commandment keeps his life, how can we keep our own life by keeping a commandment? And, when they say work out your own salvation, what do they mean, if final salvation is given to you by faith alone, then what would be the necessity to work for this salvation if you already have it?[/quote]So what was your answer?
[/quote]
I gave it to you. You commit your work to the Lord, doing it in fear you avoid evil, when your way’s please the Lord, and are loyal and faithful to the Lord, he makes peace with you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You say you define Him.
[/quote]
Proof. Show me where I said I define G-d?
And, Tirib the fact remains…that you follow a man (men: Calvin and Van Til), while I follow one man’s teaching, Jesus, described and taught by the first Christians ordained by Christ himself and those who He ordained himself.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What does this mean?
Proverbs 16:33[quote]The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.[/quote][/quote]
That what appears random to us is known by God. I prefer this one
Proverbs 16:5
“Everyone who is arrogant in heart is ran abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”
but
Prverbs 16:17
However:
Proverbs 16:26
“The highway of the upright turns aside from evil; whoever guards his way preserves his life.”
A worker’s appetite works for him; his mouth urges him on."
You should read Proverbs…It’s good book. Context is important.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< If you look down to 9:22, “made for destruction” the Greek can mean that the vessels of wrath have prepared themselves for doom by rejecting the gospel. Paul is not saying that God has predestined the unbelieves of Israel for damnation; otherwise he would not be praying (10:1) and working (11:14) for their salvation (CCC 1037). >>>[/quote]It can? What was I thinking? Look Chris you’re talking about the fact this is a participle in the perfect tense which can in certain (relatively rare) circumstances be seen as in the middle voice. No way. It’s perfect passive which is demanded by the immediate and further surrounding context. In other words a present state resulting from being acted UPON in the past.
[/quote]
You would have to ignore a large part of scripture to accept this.
[/quote]No you do not. You simply allow scripture to define God and then God to define all else in scripture including man and his precious exalted will. I dunno. From where I sit this is just thinking with the mind of Christ which Paul says we’ve been given.
God’s way
Step 1- Who and what is God?
Step 2- Now that that unchangeable and all governing set of attributes is cemented in place we move on to who and what is man.
Step 3- Nothing said about finite and sinful man can in any way alter what we already know about the infinite immutable God.
Your way.
Step 1- Determine who and what God and man are together with equal eminence accorded each.
Step 2- When there arises what appears to be a conflict between the unassailable will of almighty man and the God we defined right along side man, we then adjust our view of God downward so as to never EVER allow all glorious man to have his sovereignty infringed upon by whatever of God might be left.
That is the utterly foundational difference between the breathtakingly awesome God of the bible and the contingent weakling set forth by autonomous man in all his flavors.
I say God defines me. You say you define Him. On and on and on you can go my dearest Christopher, but in the end THAT IS what it comes down to.
[/quote]
Then why do you dishonor God with the lie of predestination? It’s an insult to Christ’s sacrifice to say it could not save the world, it’s an insult to God to say that he would willingly give his creation over to his enemy in Satan. It is an insult to the Holy Spirit to say that he could not inspire his people to salvation in this little tiny world. And it’s contrary to the scriptures which you claim to know, but you don’t worship God; you worship John Calvin…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You say you define Him.
[/quote]
Proof. Show me where I said I define G-d?
And, Tirib the fact remains…that you follow a man (men: Calvin and Van Til), while I follow one man’s teaching, Jesus, described and taught by the first Christians ordained by Christ himself and those who He ordained himself.[/quote]
I do believe Christ said “beware of false prophets” John Calvin was one if I have ever heard of one. His crap is so extra-biblical, I honestly think he was making it up. I guess people follow kooks all the time (Branch Dividian, Fred Phelps ~ Westboro Baptist church), but even Fred Phelps as nutty as he is, thinks all men can be saved if they hate gays ans shit. I don’t believe in hating my way toward salvation.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I gave it to you. You commit your work to the Lord, doing it in fear you avoid evil, when your way’s please the Lord, and are loyal and faithful to the Lord, he makes peace with you.[/quote]You can’t even be serious with this one. Casting lots, though we aren’t certain of the precise physical mechanism of antiquity, was the equivalent of rolling dice. A concerted, overt act of calculated deliberation for the very purpose of forcing ungoverned randomness into reality. Just like our games of CHANCE. What does Solomon say to this? EVEN THEN, it’s every decision is from the Lord. God, with a capitol G spoils even our most white knuckled efforts at preventing His providential prerogative. If you honestly do not see that then not even Cornelius Van Til was aware of just how right he was.
Hear me Chris please. I am not your enemy. I mean no ill will with any of this. I do not believe what I believe because I couldn’t figure anything else out to believe. This is jist a little tidbit. There’s plenty more biblical evidence of the all victorious, all triumphant, God who CANNOT fail. I’ll be “charitable” and resist my natural tendency toward sledgehammer sarcasm.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< It’s an insult to Christ’s sacrifice to say it could not save the world, >>>[/quote]I said just a few days ago that one drop of Christ’s precious blood could save one trillion Earth’s covered in sinful people. I’ll find it if ya want. You don’t pay attention Pat.[quote]pat wrote:<<< it’s an insult to God to say that he would willingly give his creation over to his enemy in Satan. >>>[/quote]1st John 5:19 says that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (go ahead n check) Under God of course because in my hermeneutic I never allow any other entity to alter what God has already said about Himself.[quote]pat wrote:<<< It is an insult to the Holy Spirit to say that he could not inspire his people to salvation in this little tiny world. >>>[/quote]I don’t know what to make of this Pat. You show just one place where I have said anything even vaguely resembling the sentiment that “the Holy Spirit could not inspire His people to salvation” and I will go buy a rosary and make a video of myself saying it and post it here. That’s exactly what I have BEEN saying. Funny you even say HIS people. Very Calvinistic of you. =] This is the part where you smile and say I misspoke. I am not yelling at you like you always think I am. [quote]pat wrote:
<<< You should read Proverbs…It’s good book. Context is important. [/quote]Proverbs has the least significance of context of any book in the Bible. There are passages, but much of it is short sayings of wisdom where there is no real context at all.
16:33 doesn’t say “known to God”. That’s what you say. Solomon says, “from the Lord”.
Serious? I just answered you from scripture. How more serious can I be? Yes, I know what casting lots is, thanks! Wanna tell me what particular physical mechanism of antiquity that is working out our salvation is?
Stop with the ethos, Tirib. I know you’re not my enemy, but you act like one. I treat you like my seperated brother and you treat me like a slave of the Devil to be sold off (I remember a story about that some where in the Bible) and spat on. No, bring your sarcasm, but bring some truth to the table, too. You pull from Proverbs, but you lack the wisdom and knowledge which Proverbs speaks on.
The dude does not understand the argument. Filling gaps is not what the argument does. It solves an ‘equation’. It does not fill gaps. If the universe is eternal it still does not disassemble or invalidate the argument. It is a necessary being, not an excuse for what we don’t know. We don’t have to know everything for cosmology to be true…Please read the link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s got arguments and counter arguments, it’s fairly brief and it will save you the heart ache of regurgitating century old refuted counter arguments.[/quote]
“In short, defenders of the cosmological argument defend the Causal Principle (or alternatively Principle of Sufficient Reason), but limit its application to contingent beings, whereas critics of the argument either question these principles or want to apply them to the necessary being.”
My problem with it. You say “everything has a cause… except the thing I say doesn’t have a cause”. You’ve never actually made an argument that your God is uncaused, only that it exists outside our universe and created our universe.
You can claim that everything has a cause, or that you believe in something totally uncaused. Not both.
And the dude gets it perfectly - “god” is simply the term you use for “I refuse to look further.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Wanna tell me what particular physical mechanism of antiquity that is working out our salvation is? >>>[/quote]Wanna tell me what casting lots has to do with working out your salvation? I asked you what it means that the most allegedly random practices of men are decided by God every time and you respond with this? I honestly don’t understand. [quote]Brother Chris wrote: I treat you like my seperated brother >>>[/quote]I am nobody’s separated anything. I am defined by my union with the living Christ. >>>[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< and you treat me like a slave of the Devil to be sold off (I remember a story about that some where in the Bible) and spat on. >>>[/quote]What is it with you man? How can you say something like this? I have told you I want you as my brother. You can disagree with me and declare me a flaming heretic, but don’t you come off with this garbage about how I would have you “sold off and spat on”. My motivation is seeing you free. Now it’s just too bad if you don’t think you need freeing, but that is my motivation nonetheless. Not to see you sold off and spat upon. I know how you’ll take this, but I can’t help that. My hand is out to you Chris (and you too Pat).
But then you posit that he’d rather condemn the majority to hell based on his predetermined will? So even though Christ’s sacrifice could save the entirety of man kind, you say created a large portion to suffer eternal punishment for no other reason but because he wanted to? Really? It’s only for the elect? That is very small minded and and insult to the sacrifice. He gave Him to save the world and not condemn it.
And Christ said he came to save it? Who do you believe, Christ or Satan?
His people are all people. He came to save ALL sinners, not elect, not special people, not red, brown, white or black people, ALL people.
Proverbs explains things in poetic phrases. While individual sentences state things in the context of the poems they are important. That tiny phrase you extracted is a small part of a much bigger thought, whose point wasn’t that God understands the causes behind dice turning up the way they do. John 3:17 says “For God did not send his Son into the world” Sounds weird out of context doesn’t it? but it says that word for word…
You forsake the Word for the fallacy of Calvin, how sad…
For God is the creator of all the laws and principles by which his creation functions…He ought to know, he’s God.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So far the cosmological argument actually says “Something outside of our universe created it and set it in motion.”
In order to make a strong case that your specific god was that force, you must also make good arguments for each and every claim about that being. [/quote]Operating from a Thomistic epistemology, which you both are, I completely agree. The cosmological argument proves every god in the world possibly true and none in particular actually true. They very reason I don’t generally use it.
The dude does not understand the argument. Filling gaps is not what the argument does. It solves an ‘equation’. It does not fill gaps. If the universe is eternal it still does not disassemble or invalidate the argument. It is a necessary being, not an excuse for what we don’t know. We don’t have to know everything for cosmology to be true…Please read the link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s got arguments and counter arguments, it’s fairly brief and it will save you the heart ache of regurgitating century old refuted counter arguments.[/quote]
“In short, defenders of the cosmological argument defend the Causal Principle (or alternatively Principle of Sufficient Reason), but limit its application to contingent beings, whereas critics of the argument either question these principles or want to apply them to the necessary being.”
My problem with it. You say “everything has a cause… except the thing I say doesn’t have a cause”. You’ve never actually made an argument that your God is uncaused, only that it exists outside our universe and created our universe.
You can claim that everything has a cause, or that you believe in something totally uncaused. Not both.
And the dude gets it perfectly - “god” is simply the term you use for “I refuse to look further.”
[/quote]
you didn’t read the link? It is asked and answered. That is NOT what the cosmological argument states. Look it up, go ahead…Again that counter argument was dis proven about 12 centuries ago. The cosmological argument allows you to look as far and as deep as you want, you simply cannot invalidate it. You have to disprove causation. The necessary being is necessary because all that exists depends on it. If ONE thing does not, it is not a necessary being.
Find one thing that is not caused, and I will concede with out complaint. But I ask you to do your homework too. This guy just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. You cannot jedi mind trick people in to invalidating something with out disproving one of two things. You have to prove that either the premises do not lead to the conclusion, or that the conclusion could not be drawn from the premises.
I suggest you look up David Hume’s work, he was an atheist, a damned brilliant one though.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< He gave Him to save the world and not condemn it. >>>[/quote]If this were literally true then He would be the most miserable failure of all time. You had it right before. He came to save His people from their sins and all the Father gives Him will come and of those He will lose none. He said so. Those are absolute God centered statements and cannot be adjusted by non absolute general statements like John 3:16.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< He gave Him to save the world and not condemn it. >>>[/quote]If this were literally true then He would be the most miserable failure of all time. You had it right before. He came to save His people from their sins and all the Father gives Him will come and of those He will lose none. He said so. Those are absolute God centered statements and cannot be adjusted by non absolute general statements like John 3:16.
Oh yeah, I know about context Pat =]
[/quote]
John 3:16 is a non-absolute general statement? By what authority do you lessen it’s importance compared to what you decide is important?
The cosmological argument allows you to look as far and as deep as you want, you simply cannot invalidate it. You have to disprove causation. The necessary being is necessary because all that exists depends on it. [/quote]
And you know all that exists? How about all that exists in Heaven? Do the same rules of causation apply there?
Doesn’t saying “god exists and is uncaused” disprove causation?
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< He gave Him to save the world and not condemn it. >>>[/quote]If this were literally true then He would be the most miserable failure of all time. You had it right before. He came to save His people from their sins and all the Father gives Him will come and of those He will lose none. He said so. Those are absolute God centered statements and cannot be adjusted by non absolute general statements like John 3:16.
Oh yeah, I know about context Pat =]
[/quote]
John 3:16 is a non-absolute general statement? By what authority do you lessen it’s importance compared to what you decide is important? [/quote]I didn’t say it was less important. I said it was less absolute. Somebody’s gonna get this.
The cosmological argument allows you to look as far and as deep as you want, you simply cannot invalidate it. You have to disprove causation. The necessary being is necessary because all that exists depends on it. [/quote]
And you know all that exists? How about all that exists in Heaven? Do the same rules of causation apply there?
Doesn’t saying “god exists and is uncaused” disprove causation? [/quote]
If I intimated that, it was error. The argument doesn’t require you know everything, if you did, it’d be handy, but you don’t need to fill in every blank to know it’s true. Very much like an algebraic expression, even with variables, the statement is true.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< He gave Him to save the world and not condemn it. >>>[/quote]If this were literally true then He would be the most miserable failure of all time. You had it right before. He came to save His people from their sins and all the Father gives Him will come and of those He will lose none. He said so. Those are absolute God centered statements and cannot be adjusted by non absolute general statements like John 3:16.
Oh yeah, I know about context Pat =]
[/quote]
John 3:16 is a non-absolute general statement? By what authority do you lessen it’s importance compared to what you decide is important? [/quote]I didn’t say it was less important. I said it was less absolute. Somebody’s gonna get this.
[/quote]
You said is was a non-absolute general statement, yet few things in the bible are less general and more direct. Calling something a non-absolute general statement, meaning that other things are more absolute and direct. Those statements would be more important than the non-absolute general statements. Bottom line, you want it to be a non-absolute general statement, but it is a absolute direct statement of intent and purpose.