Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.

Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]

I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.

I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.

My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.

I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.[/quote]

Yes and no. There are parts of the bible where god appears open to questioning and there are parts where he goes all smitey on people for daring to doubt his word.

On the whole though it is the Church that is terrified of anyone questioning its tenets, not God and that is an important distinction.[/quote]

Ahh, it is very important to keep in mind context though - there is a difference between having a question or not accepting something that is unclear in doctrine, but when God has personally spoken to you directly and charged you individually with a certain action and you fail to obey his direct command to you as an individual - I would think He has the right to go all “smitey” on you . . (i like that word - I may have to use that from time to time)

LOL - yes, but the “Church” fear is not based on theology but on the mixing of politics and religion to acheive power and control to satisfy the greed and avarice of men - concepts foreign to true Christianity.

Any church worth attending not only welcomes doubters and unbelievers, but willing provides the answers from faith and scripture that it has - the decision for belief/acceptance will always rest with the hearer of the word.

We Christians are not offended by or afraid of any question - in fact, we are charged to always be ready to give an answer. We are not worried by doubts or fears, even Thomas proclaimed that he did believe and in the same breath asked for help with his unbelief - God knows the frailty of our human hearts and is more than able to accept us exactly where we are . . .[/quote]

Totally agree with you on the heady mix of politics and religion.

What does puzzle me is how people get from something like the Prime Mover of the cosmological argument to accepting their specific god. I have far less of a problem with the Prime Mover as an abstract concept than a specific God that someone has a personal relationship with who cares intimately about individuals, reads their thoughts and punishes them based on their actions. For me that is a huge leap and it almost seems that it typically goes the other way.

We start off believing in lots of things. Jesus, Father Christmas, The Easter Bunny and the Bogie Man under the bed. As we develop we cast off most of them but hang onto religion the longest and hardest because it is the one that is most ingrained in us. Either we fail to question it or we grab onto any possible driftwood argument to keep the faith afloat.

This is not meant as an insult on your or anyone Else’s intellect and I apologies if it comes across that way. It is just something I struggle with. I am sure, on the flip side, you struggle to understand how I fail to see the obvious truth of God.

262

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< Totally agree with you on the heady mix of politics and religion.

What does puzzle me is how people get from something like the Prime Mover of the cosmological argument to accepting their specific god. I have far less of a problem with the Prime Mover as an abstract concept than a specific God that someone has a personal relationship with who cares intimately about individuals, reads their thoughts and punishes them based on their actions. For me that is a huge leap and it almost seems that it typically goes the other way.

We start off believing in lots of things. Jesus, Father Christmas, The Easter Bunny and the Bogie Man under the bed. As we develop we cast off most of them but hang onto religion the longest and hardest because it is the one that is most ingrained in us. Either we fail to question it or we grab onto any possible driftwood argument to keep the faith afloat.

This is not meant as an insult on your or anyone Else’s intellect and I apologies if it comes across that way. It is just something I struggle with. I am sure, on the flip side, you struggle to understand how I fail to see the obvious truth of God.[/quote]
The underlined really is the big question. I’m on board with here with the “the church should not be the state” thing. It’s not biblical and no good thing has historically come from it. Neither should the church, by which I mean any church, exercise authority through the state. That is also not biblical and is a recipe for corruption both ways.

263

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Totally agree with you on the heady mix of politics and religion.

What does puzzle me is how people get from something like the Prime Mover of the cosmological argument to accepting their specific god. I have far less of a problem with the Prime Mover as an abstract concept than a specific God that someone has a personal relationship with who cares intimately about individuals, reads their thoughts and punishes them based on their actions. For me that is a huge leap and it almost seems that it typically goes the other way.

We start off believing in lots of things. Jesus, Father Christmas, The Easter Bunny and the Bogie Man under the bed. As we develop we cast off most of them but hang onto religion the longest and hardest because it is the one that is most ingrained in us. Either we fail to question it or we grab onto any possible driftwood argument to keep the faith afloat.

This is not meant as an insult on your or anyone Else’s intellect and I apologies if it comes across that way. It is just something I struggle with. I am sure, on the flip side, you struggle to understand how I fail to see the obvious truth of God.[/quote]

no insult taken at all - the same accusation holds true to other side in equal validity - those raised antagonistic to religion or even ambivalent towards it - remain so throughout their lives. There is no intellectual high ground on remaining rooted to beliefs as they were passed to you. That is why true believers will amaze you with their journey to belief - it is never simply because they were told such and such. There are millions of what we call first-generation believers in the world because of this simple truth.

in fact your questions remind me of the same ones i was asking myself during part of my own long spiritual journey. For me, I used a version of Holmes’ deductive investigative method - eliminate everything false - if something does not stand up as truth - get rid of it.

As i traveled and studied various religions, I came to the settled conclusion that the Divine exists (this I learned from the Tao and from Science) and then after even more study, I came to the conclusion that the Divine as revealed in Christianity is the most consistent with the Divine I see revealed in nature. Try as I might I was unable to disprove the validity of Christianity. It is easier for me to disprove the existence of Plato and Aristotle than it is to disprove the truth of Scripture.

Thus, unable to disprove the existence of the Divine and unable to disprove the revelation of Scripture, by reason I came to faith and through Faith I have salvation through Jesus Christ.

264

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Totally agree with you on the heady mix of politics and religion.

What does puzzle me is how people get from something like the Prime Mover of the cosmological argument to accepting their specific god. I have far less of a problem with the Prime Mover as an abstract concept than a specific God that someone has a personal relationship with who cares intimately about individuals, reads their thoughts and punishes them based on their actions. For me that is a huge leap and it almost seems that it typically goes the other way.

We start off believing in lots of things. Jesus, Father Christmas, The Easter Bunny and the Bogie Man under the bed. As we develop we cast off most of them but hang onto religion the longest and hardest because it is the one that is most ingrained in us. Either we fail to question it or we grab onto any possible driftwood argument to keep the faith afloat.

This is not meant as an insult on your or anyone Else’s intellect and I apologies if it comes across that way. It is just something I struggle with. I am sure, on the flip side, you struggle to understand how I fail to see the obvious truth of God.[/quote]

no insult taken at all - the same accusation holds true to other side in equal validity - those raised antagonistic to religion or even ambivalent towards it - remain so throughout their lives. There is no intellectual high ground on remaining rooted to beliefs as they were passed to you. That is why true believers will amaze you with their journey to belief - it is never simply because they were told such and such. There are millions of what we call first-generation believers in the world because of this simple truth.

in fact your questions remind me of the same ones i was asking myself during part of my own long spiritual journey. For me, I used a version of Holmes’ deductive investigative method - eliminate everything false - if something does not stand up as truth - get rid of it.

As i traveled and studied various religions, I came to the settled conclusion that the Divine exists (this I learned from the Tao and from Science) and then after even more study, I came to the conclusion that the Divine as revealed in Christianity is the most consistent with the Divine I see revealed in nature. Try as I might I was unable to disprove the validity of Christianity. It is easier for me to disprove the existence of Plato and Aristotle than it is to disprove the truth of Scripture.

Thus, unable to disprove the existence of the Divine and unable to disprove the revelation of Scripture, by reason I came to faith and through Faith I have salvation through Jesus Christ.[/quote]

What’s pretty funny is that I went in pretty much the opposite direction. Started off as a devout Christian in a Christian family. Studied a lot of science, moved through Gnosticism and Mysticism to Eastern Philosophies. Read a lot about Taoism, still like the philosophy of Taoism though don’t see it as a religion and ended up pretty strongly atheist, but open minded to all possibilities.

265

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…you do realise that other christians say the same thing but may very well believe things you won’t agree with?
[/quote]

So?[/quote]

…when one believer interprets scripture differently from you but has similar religious experiences that tell him that he is on the narrow path of righteousness, imo that can mean two things:

…either god does not care about the fine print, only that you believe or beliefs excite parts of the brain and create experiences that are separate from the truth of those beliefs…

266

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The bottom line is Augustine was right. There is a universal invisible church consisting of all true believers who will ever be redeemed regardless of what specific denomination they belong to. There also is and always has been a visible church consisting of those who claim the name of Christ regardless of whether they are true believers or not. They are known by their fruits which are both sound doctrine and a godly, though certainly imperfect life. One without the other indicates nothing except how insidious spiritual deception can be.

BTW, I am well aware that you being a rather intelligent and thoughtful chap will no doubt find a bunch more questions in this post, but I’m doing the best I know how.[/quote]

…thank you for that answer. Some follow-up questions: why do you believe you follow the right path in christianity, and how do you discern that others are wrong? From someone else’s perspective, you could be wrong and they could be right…
[/quote](Please see my last post on the previous page)
Now that I’ve sat staring at this reply box for about 10 minutes musing over where to start let’s go with God’s providence. (man this is hard to do online) God’s all wise providence is that application of His power to His creation whereby he orders all things to His own purpose and glory. There is mountains of biblical evidence for this.

Believing that God would allow His essential truths in areas of faith or morals to perish from the earth until discovered by some modern person manifests a horrifically deficient understanding of the God we are talking about and is itself a reason to question someone’s knowledge of the Him regardless of the specific content. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are the best known classic examples of this though they are most certainly not alone. Also, believing that modern human discovery within the creation of God can alter and revise what He Himself has revealed in His Word is blasphemous idolatry for which there is also mountains of biblical evidence.

Every last syllable I’ve typed in this forum in any thread is consistently represented throughout the new testament era. (yes, there is another giant discussion in here) As I said, absolutely NOTHING I believe originated with or is unique to me or any other modern man sinfully presuming to improve upon God’s Word and providence. Like Sloth said, fallible sinful human understanding will never produce universal consensus on every point of doctrine in this life, however God in His providence has promised to personally preserve the essentials of saving faith and Christian morals on which every true believer agrees to this day.

Christians are Christians because we have been supernaturally resurrected from spiritual death to new life having been indwelt by the Spirit of the living God through self abandoning faith in the sacrifice of His Son. Not because we do our best to be good people and or defend the parts of the bible we like. The transformed set apart from the world in practice holy life we are commanded and strive to live is the indescribably joyous result. I can easily demonstrate from the bible that while I can never know for absolutely certain this side of heaven that anyone other than myself is saved, I most definitely can know in clear cases if they’re not. In not so clear cases, which there are some of those too, I am commanded, indeed all Christians are, to defend the truth, separate from the unrepentant obstinate offender and pray for their repentance and recovery to right standing with God. [/quote]

…that’s heavy. Seriously, how far are you willing to go to bring god’s truth to people? Are you part of a church? If people ask what kind of christian you are, what do you answer?

267

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Seriously, I came to Christianity via studying the Tao. In seeking to understand the Tao, I discovered the nature/reality of God separate from the revealed truth of the Bible, but in the revealed truth of the Bible I discovered the character of God. The character of God as revealed in the Bible matched the nature of the Divine that I found in the Tao. >>>[/quote]Romans 1:18-20:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”[/quote]

…so the wicked receive their punishment in heaven. That’s nice, but it’s not doing us down here a lot of good, is it?

268

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]

You are going on faith too…You believe in something from nothing with less that no proof what-so-ever…So we are all faithful people.[/quote]

No, I have seen with my own eyes experiments where particles come into being out of a vacuum and have then read detailed theories of what I am seeing. On balance I believe those theories to be the most likely explanation of what is going on though I am open to changing my opinion based on further evidence.[/quote]

A vacuum is a something, not a nothing, further the events take place in space and happen in time…Nothingness, literally does not exist. Therefore it is impossible to empirically test something from nothing. You’re only vessel for discovery is reason and logic.
I agree it’s fascinating stuff and I wish I knew more about it.
I don’t know how accurate the theory is, though it seems there is some truth to it, if not a complete truth, it still is able to tell us something about the universe. What I like about quantum mechanics, is that it seems very near the intersection between the physical and metaphysical world. Same with general relativity as it pertains to black holes.
I hear theoretical physicists talk about how the equations break down to 1/0 which they consider an error, but I have been thinking really, just what if the equation is correct and black holes do end up having infinite mass and infinite gravity? Could we really know it does not?

269

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.

Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]

I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.

I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.

My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.

I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.[/quote]

Yes and no. There are parts of the bible where god appears open to questioning and there are parts where he goes all smitey on people for daring to doubt his word.

On the whole though it is the Church that is terrified of anyone questioning its tenets, not God and that is an important distinction.[/quote]

Ahh, it is very important to keep in mind context though - there is a difference between having a question or not accepting something that is unclear in doctrine, but when God has personally spoken to you directly and charged you individually with a certain action and you fail to obey his direct command to you as an individual - I would think He has the right to go all “smitey” on you . . (i like that word - I may have to use that from time to time)

LOL - yes, but the “Church” fear is not based on theology but on the mixing of politics and religion to acheive power and control to satisfy the greed and avarice of men - concepts foreign to true Christianity.

Any church worth attending not only welcomes doubters and unbelievers, but willing provides the answers from faith and scripture that it has - the decision for belief/acceptance will always rest with the hearer of the word.

We Christians are not offended by or afraid of any question - in fact, we are charged to always be ready to give an answer. We are not worried by doubts or fears, even Thomas proclaimed that he did believe and in the same breath asked for help with his unbelief - God knows the frailty of our human hearts and is more than able to accept us exactly where we are . . .[/quote]

Totally agree with you on the heady mix of politics and religion.

What does puzzle me is how people get from something like the Prime Mover of the cosmological argument to accepting their specific god. I have far less of a problem with the Prime Mover as an abstract concept than a specific God that someone has a personal relationship with who cares intimately about individuals, reads their thoughts and punishes them based on their actions. For me that is a huge leap and it almost seems that it typically goes the other way.

We start off believing in lots of things. Jesus, Father Christmas, The Easter Bunny and the Bogie Man under the bed. As we develop we cast off most of them but hang onto religion the longest and hardest because it is the one that is most ingrained in us. Either we fail to question it or we grab onto any possible driftwood argument to keep the faith afloat.

This is not meant as an insult on your or anyone Else’s intellect and I apologies if it comes across that way. It is just something I struggle with. I am sure, on the flip side, you struggle to understand how I fail to see the obvious truth of God.[/quote]

Do you believe the there is a Prime Mover?

270

[quote]ephrem wrote: …that’s heavy. Seriously, how far are you willing to go to bring god’s truth to people? Are you part of a church? If people ask what kind of christian you are, what do you answer?
[/quote]Christians are commanded to live in the Spirit which by definition defeats the lusts of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16) That means feeding the new creature in Christ the last Adam, and starving the old man born in sin in the first. Prayer, bible study and fellowship with other believers while avoiding where possible the undue temptation and influence of the world is the short version of what that is.

Our example to others, what we call a testimony is first. If I act or speak just like they do why would they listen to anything I might say? We are commanded to be separate, set apart, not participating in those things or conversations God hates, (2 Corinthians 6) without portraying ourselves as self righteous because we most certainly are NOT righteous in ourselves.

As I said before I have been lately convicted concerning sharing my faith with the lost. That culminated in a post by one the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the trinity thread. He made an unassailable point about which I felt very guilty as a representative of Christ and I told him so. Prayerful wisdom is required in this regard. We need to tell them, but not every time or place is appropriate and some well meaning believers can inadvertently damage their witness by unthinking overzealousness.

As for “what kind of” Christian am I? I am a protestant who stands unshakably in the Calvinistic tradition of the the Westminster assembly of the the 1640’s. I believe that group of godly learned men left the world the purest non inspired (very important point) representation of scriptural truth ever put in one place outside of the bible itself. This leads me right into your last question.

I am betting I am the only Christian here who holds that theological tradition even though it was absolutely the school held by the great awakening preachers leading up to the American revolution, especially George Whitfield. However =] … Long before this post Irishsteel and I figured out that we disagree about quite a bit even tough we have never discussed it, but, BUT… we have also seen that on the very essentials, we worship the same God and share the same struggles as men in Him and therefore consider each other brothers in Christ.

[quote]ephrem wrote:…so the wicked receive their punishment in heaven. That’s nice, but it’s not doing us down here a lot of good, is it?
[/quote] This struck me funny lol. Paul is saying from “heaven” here and in the present. It IS revealed FROM heaven against…

271

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]

It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.

Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.

[quote]

Firstly, why must I necessarily believe that and secondly, why is that in any way a proof of God. It is just a proof of something we don’t currently understand, in the same way as a few hundred years ago we didn’t understand why the Sun rose and set or the stars sparkled in the night sky.

Finally quantum fluctuations are outside of cause and effect chains because they are independent of time. The formulae work perfectly in reverse.[/quote]

Time is not a necessary component of causal relationships. There is no evidence anywhere in the universe of anything that sits outside the causal chain. Things not understood are not things uncaused.

I’ll answer more later, I just spent all night in a fucking hospital.

272

^ everything ok pat?

273

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

What’s pretty funny is that I went in pretty much the opposite direction. Started off as a devout Christian in a Christian family. Studied a lot of science, moved through Gnosticism and Mysticism to Eastern Philosophies. Read a lot about Taoism, still like the philosophy of Taoism though don’t see it as a religion and ended up pretty strongly atheist, but open minded to all possibilities.[/quote]

That is funny. Just goes to show that you at least have an inquisitive mind. :slight_smile:

do you mind if I ask what denomination of Christianity you grew up in?

274

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< I’ll answer more later, I just spent all night in a fucking hospital.[/quote]
That doesn’t sound too great. Hope everything’s OK.

275

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

As for “what kind of” Christian am I? I am a protestant who stands unshakably in the Calvinistic tradition of the the Westminster assembly of the the 1640’s. I believe that group of godly learned men left the world the purest non inspired (very important point) representation of scriptural truth ever put in one place outside of the bible itself. This leads me right into your last question.

I am betting I am the only Christian here who holds that theological tradition even though it was absolutely the school held by the great awakening preachers leading up to the American revolution, especially George Whitfield. However =] … Long before this post Irishsteel and I figured out that we disagree about quite a bit even tough we have never discussed it, but, BUT… we have also seen that on the very essentials, we worship the same God and share the same struggles as men in Him and therefore consider each other brothers in Christ.

[/quote]
You would be lose that bet :slight_smile:

276

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As for “what kind of” Christian am I? I am a protestant who stands unshakably in the Calvinistic tradition of the the Westminster assembly of the the 1640’s. I believe that group of godly learned men left the world the purest non inspired (very important point) representation of scriptural truth ever put in one place outside of the bible itself. This leads me right into your last question.

I am betting I am the only Christian here who holds that theological tradition even though it was absolutely the school held by the great awakening preachers leading up to the American revolution, especially George Whitfield. However =] … Long before this post Irishsteel and I figured out that we disagree about quite a bit even tough we have never discussed it, but, BUT… we have also seen that on the very essentials, we worship the same God and share the same struggles as men in Him and therefore consider each other brothers in Christ.
[/quote]

exactly so. I do not agree with Calvin - but the disagreement is one based on our understanding of how (or the mechanisms by which) God accomplishes His work of salvation - not on the need, manner or application of that salvation.

The foundational doctrines of the gospel are plain and on those we agree 100%.

I understand where Tirib comes from and the perspective he has, but since I do not come to Christianity through a protestant tradition, we differ (as I mentioned) on points of human understanding that do not alter the truth of God’s word nor the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. As he stated, they are the non-inspired views of men, so we can have honest disagreement and discussion about them.

This is all based on the acknowledgement that there are absolute truths that cannot be altered and on those we find complete agreement.

277

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

As for “what kind of” Christian am I? I am a protestant who stands unshakably in the Calvinistic tradition of the the Westminster assembly of the the 1640’s. I believe that group of godly learned men left the world the purest non inspired (very important point) representation of scriptural truth ever put in one place outside of the bible itself. This leads me right into your last question.

I am betting I am the only Christian here who holds that theological tradition even though it was absolutely the school held by the great awakening preachers leading up to the American revolution, especially George Whitfield. However =] … Long before this post Irishsteel and I figured out that we disagree about quite a bit even tough we have never discussed it, but, BUT… we have also seen that on the very essentials, we worship the same God and share the same struggles as men in Him and therefore consider each other brothers in Christ.

[/quote]
You would be lose that bet :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Could it be we have a sighting of another adherent to the doctrines of grace?!?! We are a fading breed as you well know.

278

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< exactly so. I do not agree with Calvin - but the disagreement is one based on our understanding of how (or the mechanisms by which) God accomplishes His work of salvation - not on the need, manner or application of that salvation. >>>[/quote] You’re cuttin it tight here,[quote]IrishSteel wrote:The foundational doctrines of the gospel are plain and on those we agree 100%.[/quote] But as far as I know I still agree.[quote]IrishSteel wrote: but since I do not come to Christianity through a protestant tradition,[/quote]Ya done pretty good there oh slippery one. I went back and forth a few times =] (In fact I still have a question mark blinkin in the back of my mind.)[quote]IrishSteel wrote: This is all based on the acknowledgment that there are absolute truths that cannot be altered and on those we find complete agreement.[/quote]Like I say, near as I can tell we do. I also agree that thus far it was much wiser to be non confrontational. This is indeed the perfect illustration of the answer to Ephrem’s question. We are about as far apart as it is possible to get and still consider each other as having a seat in the invisible church of the actually redeemed. Before this comes up, yes I am well aware that many in my “camp” are not as gracious as I am, lol.

279

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

As for “what kind of” Christian am I? I am a protestant who stands unshakably in the Calvinistic tradition of the the Westminster assembly of the the 1640’s. I believe that group of godly learned men left the world the purest non inspired (very important point) representation of scriptural truth ever put in one place outside of the bible itself. This leads me right into your last question.

I am betting I am the only Christian here who holds that theological tradition even though it was absolutely the school held by the great awakening preachers leading up to the American revolution, especially George Whitfield. However =] … Long before this post Irishsteel and I figured out that we disagree about quite a bit even tough we have never discussed it, but, BUT… we have also seen that on the very essentials, we worship the same God and share the same struggles as men in Him and therefore consider each other brothers in Christ.

[/quote]
You would be lose that bet :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Could it be we have a sighting of another adherent to the doctrines of grace?!?! We are a fading breed as you well know.[/quote]

As far as I can tell those who adhere to the reformers is growing. I for instance was raised baptist and at 24(which was not that long ago) changed my view on alot of things. I would say you are right in the sense that the leading movement is the heresy brought forth by the word of faith movement. I would say people like RC Sproul, Hank hanegraff, and a few others are leading the charge toward a more reformed belief.

280

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< exactly so. I do not agree with Calvin - but the disagreement is one based on our understanding of how (or the mechanisms by which) God accomplishes His work of salvation - not on the need, manner or application of that salvation. >>>[/quote] You’re cuttin it tight here,[quote]IrishSteel wrote:The foundational doctrines of the gospel are plain and on those we agree 100%.[/quote] But as far as I know I still agree.[quote]IrishSteel wrote: but since I do not come to Christianity through a protestant tradition,[/quote]Ya done pretty good there oh slippery one. I went back and forth a few times =] (In fact I still have a question mark blinkin in the back of my mind.)[quote]IrishSteel wrote: This is all based on the acknowledgment that there are absolute truths that cannot be altered and on those we find complete agreement.[/quote]Like I say, near as I can tell we do. I also agree that thus far it was much wiser to be non confrontational. This is indeed the perfect illustration of the answer to Ephrem’s question. We are about as far apart as it is possible to get and still consider each other as having a seat in the invisible church of the actually redeemed. Before this comes up, yes I am well aware that many in my “camp” are not as gracious as I am, lol.
[/quote]

:slight_smile: You know me, Tirib - biblical literalism all the way.

The saddest part is that in response to some of the ungracious members of that “camp” I was just as ungracious in return. Definitely failed my Lord in that behavior . . .