Why's Your Religion Better?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

Okay, the last pillar of Calvinism the TULIP, is the ‘P’erseverance of the Saints’. Now if you are following along, you know that the basis for all of Calvin’s teachings is predestination, or what is theologically known as ‘double predestination’, where God not only chose those who would go to heaven, but also choose those to go to hell as well.
Calvin did a good job laying out his TULIP, in that each pillar feeds in to the other and the theme is consistent through out. Sadly he is wrong and the pillars are unscriptural and technically not Christian. Christianity has never held the opinion, much less fact that God predestine one to be damned to hell, not by his own choice, but by God’s will.
Further, if you follow the logic, if what Calvinism holds true, God is not only the author and creator of evil, but that he has chosen those who would be evil, following therefore by God’s will they are sinful, and hence are punished for this sin, though through no will of their own, they were sinful. It is this basis of belief that makes the ideology of Calvinism false and heretical.
Now keep in mind, Calvin was no dummy, he knew that it did not follow logically, he also knew that it didn’t make any sense scripturally. He therefore leans very heavily on two passages for the justification of his theology to make it work and to keep questions and prying questioning from challenging his authoritative stances.
“You will say to me then, ?Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
(Romans 9:19-20 ESV)”
Indeed who can answer back to God? but then again, are we question God, or man? When somebody makes bizarre claims on the basis of scripture we are questioning man, not God.
The abandonment of logic is based on:
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1 Corinthians 1:22-25 ESV)”
The problem is that it isn’t an admonishment of wisdom logic and reason, but to put these things in as a demand. That 'if I am to believe, God must _______."

Now after this prelude, on to the ‘Perseverance of the saints’.
This doctrine states the following:
“the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God’s hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God’s stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the “last day” (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ’s promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.”

The short is, once saved, always saved, you cannot lose it by your own will. You can hate God but you cannot lose it. There in lies it’s error.

The problem isn’t the doctrine that God brings sanctification to the ‘elect’, those who hear and do the word of God. The problem is that you cannot choose it and you cannot lose it. At least theoretically, once chosen, there is NOTHING you can do to lose this salvation. The Calvinist will claim that, if you are chosen that you will by default act holy, but the doctrine doesn’t really say or imply that. Not only that, once chosen, there is nothing you can do to lose it. Technically you can do whatever you want and you cannot lose your salvation. Conversely, you can save lives, run an orphanage, give to the poor, but if you weren’t chosen, you are screwed.

This lack of choice, this complete absence and fatalistic aspect of predestination, is the downfall of this theology.

Some examples of scriptural refutations:

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
(1 Timothy 4:1-2 ESV)”

“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ?today,? that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
(Hebrews 3:12-14 ESV)”

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
(2 Peter 2:20 ESV)”

182

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

He would not have made himself a master over the church. He would have known that we have only one Master
[/quote]

This… I don’t even know where you are getting this. This is nonsense. This is just your strange hatred of authority coming out again.

As I stated before, you don’t know WHAT Jesus told the apostles about the legitimacy and proper execution of church discipline; WE ONLY HAVE THE HANDFUL OF JESUS’ SAYINGS THAT INDIVIDUAL GOSPEL WRITERS INCLUDED IN THEIR TEXTS TO FIT THEIR PARTICULAR GOALS. Consequently, you have NO basis for saying what Jesus would and wouldn’t have done. More importantly, however, you are once again ignoring the facts - (1) Paul’s move was meant to ultimately lead the person to repentance while preserving the church from sin, AND PAUL’S MOVE SUCCEEDED, as that guy DID repent (2 Cor. 2:6); (2) this fellow’s sin was egregious and he was CONTINUING TO LIVE in it with no desire for repentance; (3) Jesus doesn’t coddle the unrepentant elsewhere, but commands them to repent or die (Rev. 2:21-23).

Now you’re just comparing apples to oranges.

PAUL is quoting Joel 2:32, which is part of the same prophecy that PETER quotes as fulfilled with the coming of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-21, see Joel 2:28-32). In other words, PETER, before Paul even became a Christian, considered this prophecy from Joel to be true, so if Paul “got Jesus wrong,” so did Peter (and WAY before Paul).

Furthermore, “calling upon the name of the Lord” is an OT euphemism for “being loyal to Yahweh.” That’s what Joel 2:32 is talking about - those loyal to Yahweh will be saved. “Lord” in Joel 2:32 is the English word used instead of the divine name Yahweh; that’s why all the letters of the word are capitalized in our bibles. “Calling upon the name” of someone (Joel 2:32) is very different from calling someone a name (“Lord”).

And most importantly, you didn’t even examine how Paul uses that verse in the context of his argument in Romans 10. Paul’s point is not that simply saying the name “Yahweh” grants you salvation; rather, he is trying to show the universality of God’s offer of salvation. You should have posted verses 9 AND 10 - " For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same lord is lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’" In other words, Paul’s emphasis in this passage (i.e., the reason why he quotes Joel 2:32 at all) is on the word “everyone.” Once ethnicity has no bearing on God’s willingness to save him or her.

Jesus is talking about lip service, those who address him as lord/master but disobey his commands. Whereas Joel 2:32 is a broad claim about loyalty to Yahweh, Jesus’ words are a specific claim about those who, despite addressing him as lord, are disloyal. These passages are NOT contradictory; you’re just a careless reader.

183

[quote]pat wrote:<<< you cannot lose it by your own will. You can hate God but you cannot lose it. There in lies it’s error. >>>[/quote]Absolutely false. NO proponent of reformed theology has EVER taught this. EVER.

184

@JayPierce

You do realize that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not to abolish them, right? Why is that statement even recorded in Matthew’s gospel? I can give you a solid reason based Matthew’s purposes - he wishes to demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching was NOT in disharmony with the OT Scriptures despite the claims of the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus’ teaching WAS in disharmony with the OT Scriptures. This matters because, by those very words, Jesus sets the Scriptures up as a standard which HE must meet. Jesus doesn’t redefine which OT texts are normative and which are deceptive, nor do we find a single example of Jesus calling a particular Scriptural text deceptive.

Therefore, if Jesus accepted the ENTIRE Old Testament as normative and non-deceptive (which, based on his use of the common names for the groups of texts used in his day, he did), and Jesus saw these texts as supplying a standard which HE needed to meet, then by reading Jesus’ words first and determining the truth or falsity of OT passages based on that, you are going completely against Jesus’ goal. If Scripture is the standard, then you should be interpreting and harmonizing Jesus’ words with and in light of the Old Testament, NOT judging OT Scriptures as true or false based on whether they agree with your perception of Jesus’ statements.

185

[quote]pat wrote:
Okay, the last pillar of Calvinism the TULIP, is the ‘P’erseverance of the Saints’. Now if you are following along, you know that the basis for all of Calvin’s teachings is predestination, or what is theologically known as ‘double predestination’, where God not only chose those who would go to heaven, but also choose those to go to hell as well.
Calvin did a good job laying out his TULIP, in that each pillar feeds in to the other and the theme is consistent through out. Sadly he is wrong and the pillars are unscriptural and technically not Christian. Christianity has never held the opinion, much less fact that God predestine one to be damned to hell, not by his own choice, but by God’s will.
Further, if you follow the logic, if what Calvinism holds true, God is not only the author and creator of evil, but that he has chosen those who would be evil, following therefore by God’s will they are sinful, and hence are punished for this sin, though through no will of their own, they were sinful. It is this basis of belief that makes the ideology of Calvinism false and heretical.
Now keep in mind, Calvin was no dummy, he knew that it did not follow logically, he also knew that it didn’t make any sense scripturally. He therefore leans very heavily on two passages for the justification of his theology to make it work and to keep questions and prying questioning from challenging his authoritative stances.
“You will say to me then, ?Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
(Romans 9:19-20 ESV)”
Indeed who can answer back to God? but then again, are we question God, or man? When somebody makes bizarre claims on the basis of scripture we are questioning man, not God.
The abandonment of logic is based on:
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1 Corinthians 1:22-25 ESV)”
The problem is that it isn’t an admonishment of wisdom logic and reason, but to put these things in as a demand. That 'if I am to believe, God must _______."

Now after this prelude, on to the ‘Perseverance of the saints’.
This doctrine states the following:
“the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God’s hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God’s stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the “last day” (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ’s promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.”

The short is, once saved, always saved, you cannot lose it by your own will. You can hate God but you cannot lose it. There in lies it’s error.

The problem isn’t the doctrine that God brings sanctification to the ‘elect’, those who hear and do the word of God. The problem is that you cannot choose it and you cannot lose it. At least theoretically, once chosen, there is NOTHING you can do to lose this salvation. The Calvinist will claim that, if you are chosen that you will by default act holy, but the doctrine doesn’t really say or imply that. Not only that, once chosen, there is nothing you can do to lose it. Technically you can do whatever you want and you cannot lose your salvation. Conversely, you can save lives, run an orphanage, give to the poor, but if you weren’t chosen, you are screwed.

This lack of choice, this complete absence and fatalistic aspect of predestination, is the downfall of this theology.

Some examples of scriptural refutations:

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
(1 Timothy 4:1-2 ESV)”

“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ?today,? that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
(Hebrews 3:12-14 ESV)”

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
(2 Peter 2:20 ESV)”

[/quote]

Pat, this is not an accurate portrayal at all, and that’s really uncommon for you. In my experience, you generally go out of your way to provide a judicious and accurate account of other belief systems; this is not a judicious or accurate account. There are NO (zero) Calvinists anywhere that believe all the things you are accusing them of. Is it deterministic? Yes, but it certainly isn’t fatalistic theology. And perseverance of the saints does NOT mean that you can “hate God” but still not lose your salvation; it means, in short, that the true recipients of God’s grace will NEVER hate God.

186

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
He wouldn’t have said that he became a father to the church through the Gospel. He would have known that we have only one Father.
[/quote]

I already dealt with this and I am not retyping the whole argument over. Instead, in addition to the supposed contradiction between John 15:15 and Revelation 2:20, please also explain THIS “contradiction” in John 3:10 - Jesus explicitly calls Nicodemus “the/a teacher of Israel,” but Jesus forbids calling people father OR teacher in Matthew 23:8-10. So did John misquote Jesus in John 3:10, or are you taking Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 too literally?
[/quote]

I left this one alone before in the hopes that you would go back and read it again and realize that Christ was calling Nicodemus’ ‘rabbi’ status into question. Here was a man who taught the word of God, but didn’t have the foggiest idea as to what Christ was talking about; “Are you a teacher of Israel and you know not these things?”

As for the disagreement between John’s gospel and the Revelation: You may want to go back and reconsider the description that John gave of the being he was speaking with. If you want, I will point you to some OT scriptures to consider. You can also tell a lot from what this being tells John to write, and to whom it will be written.

187

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
He wouldn’t have said that he became a father to the church through the Gospel. He would have known that we have only one Father.
[/quote]

I already dealt with this and I am not retyping the whole argument over. Instead, in addition to the supposed contradiction between John 15:15 and Revelation 2:20, please also explain THIS “contradiction” in John 3:10 - Jesus explicitly calls Nicodemus “the/a teacher of Israel,” but Jesus forbids calling people father OR teacher in Matthew 23:8-10. So did John misquote Jesus in John 3:10, or are you taking Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 too literally?
[/quote]
I left this one alone before in the hopes that you would go back and read it again and realize that Christ was calling Nicodemus’ ‘rabbi’ status into question. Here was a man who taught the word of God, but didn’t have the foggiest idea as to what Christ was talking about; “Are you a teacher of Israel and you know not these things?”

As for the disagreement between John’s gospel and the Revelation: You may want to go back and reconsider the description that John gave of the being he was speaking with. If you want, I will point you to some OT scriptures to consider. You can also tell a lot from what this being tells John to write, and to whom it will be written.[/quote]

I honestly LOL at your feeble attempts at arguing against someone who is TRAINED in Biblical scholarship. From my understanding, he actually knows the languages of the original texts, Hebrew and Koine Greek. Do you? Go back to knocking on doors witness. Those are much softer, gullible targets.

188

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you”

He was not talking to Paul.[/quote]

Here we go again…

Do the gospels record everything Jesus to everyone? NO.

Can we therefore state definitively what Jesus did and did not say (except, of course, for things that would be contradictory to his own teaching)? NO.[/quote]
Maybe not, but if Christ had actually visited Paul, taught him the Word, and made him an Apostle, he wouldn’t call himself a servant and a slave of Christ. He would have known to call himself a friend of Christ.

He wouldn’t have said that he became a father to the church through the Gospel. He would have known that we have only one Father.

He would not have made himself a master over the church. He would have known that we have only one Master

He would not have told his church to hand someone over to Satan. He would have gone after them like a lost sheep.

He would not have taught that ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’. He would have known that Christ said “Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in Heaven.”

You can pass all of these things off as coincidence or rationalize them as you desire. As for me, I believe Christ above all others.[/quote]

I’ve dealt with every single one of these points (except for the Master thing, which is just your perception, not something Paul even called himself). [/quote]

1 Cor. 4:21 “Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and with a spirit of gentleness?”

Who can punish, but a master? Why would he suggest that he had the authority to come to them with a rod?

189

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

I left this one alone before in the hopes that you would go back and read it again and realize that Christ was calling Nicodemus’ ‘rabbi’ status into question. Here was a man who taught the word of God, but didn’t have the foggiest idea as to what Christ was talking about; “Are you a teacher of Israel and you know not these things?”
[/quote]

Thanks for your consideration, but it’s you who needs to go back and reread John 3:10 in Greek. Well, since you don’t know Greek, I’ll just tell you what the text says - “You are a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not know these things?” Jesus’ expresses his incredulity at the fact that, despite Nicodemus’ status as teacher, he still doesn’t know these things. The first clause is a statement; the connecting kai in this sort of construction denotes “and yet,” and signals the beginning of the actual question.

[quote]
As for the disagreement between John’s gospel and the Revelation: You may want to go back and reconsider the description that John gave of the being he was speaking with. If you want, I will point you to some OT scriptures to consider. You can also tell a lot from what this being tells John to write, and to whom it will be written.[/quote]

You actually need to spend some time in Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic texts, as well as Daniel, Zechariah, and Ezekiel, if you really want to understand the imagery used in Revelation, not to mention Isaiah and Jeremiah. That being said, you have (1) quoted “the words of Jesus” from Revelation before in defense of points, so that’s why I am using it too; (2) you’re not going to be able to prove that the being who appears to John is anyone other than Jesus. The fact of the matter is, as much as you detested my points about the angel of the Lord serving as Yahweh’s special representative in the OT, that would be the only shot you would have of demonstrating that this figure was someone other than Jesus, and even that wouldn’t work.

Here’s why…

  1. The being who appears to John has “eyes like a flame of fire” and a “sharp, double-edged sword” coming out of his mouth. These two features are unique and are only used elsewhere to describe the figure in Revelation 19:11-16, who is clearly Christ (note particularly 19:13).

  2. The being specifically refers to himself as “the Son of God” (Rev. 2:18; note the definite article) and fulfills the same role that Jesus claimed he would fulfill, judging each person according to their works (Rev. 2:23, cf. Matthew 16:27).

  3. The being identifies himself as “The First and the Last” (Rev. 1:17), the same title Jesus calls himself in his final speech in Rev. 22:12-16.

  4. The being identifies himself as the subject of Psalm 2:9, a Messianic Psalm (meaning that it is about the Messiah), and claims that he has the right to give the same authority he received to his followers (Rev. 2:26-27).

There are parallels with the depictions of angelic beings in the OT (as well as the Messianic Son of Man figure mentioned Daniel 7 and 10), but that doesn’t mean its an angel. Rather, this is the exalted, heavenly Christ, now fully displaying his glory. Trust me on this - the issue of why John uses OT imagery to describe this figure and how it makes his point is EXTREMELY COMPLEX, requires a knowledge of textual criticism that you don’t possess, and in the end only further confirms my point. I’ll go into it if you want, but the sheer fact that this figure clearly equates himself with Christ in several different ways leaves no room for it to be anyone BUT Christ.

And as I already noted, you have cited the words of this figure as Christ’s own before. :slight_smile:

190

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

I left this one alone before in the hopes that you would go back and read it again and realize that Christ was calling Nicodemus’ ‘rabbi’ status into question. Here was a man who taught the word of God, but didn’t have the foggiest idea as to what Christ was talking about; “Are you a teacher of Israel and you know not these things?”
[/quote]

Thanks for your consideration, but it’s you who needs to go back and reread John 3:10 in Greek. Well, since you don’t know Greek, I’ll just tell you what the text says - “You are a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not know these things?” Jesus’ expresses his incredulity at the fact that, despite Nicodemus’ status as teacher, he still doesn’t know these things. The first clause is a statement; the connecting kai in this sort of construction denotes “and yet,” and signals the beginning of the actual question.

[/quote]

I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything.

Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?

191

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Okay, the last pillar of Calvinism the TULIP, is the ‘P’erseverance of the Saints’. Now if you are following along, you know that the basis for all of Calvin’s teachings is predestination, or what is theologically known as ‘double predestination’, where God not only chose those who would go to heaven, but also choose those to go to hell as well.
Calvin did a good job laying out his TULIP, in that each pillar feeds in to the other and the theme is consistent through out. Sadly he is wrong and the pillars are unscriptural and technically not Christian. Christianity has never held the opinion, much less fact that God predestine one to be damned to hell, not by his own choice, but by God’s will.
Further, if you follow the logic, if what Calvinism holds true, God is not only the author and creator of evil, but that he has chosen those who would be evil, following therefore by God’s will they are sinful, and hence are punished for this sin, though through no will of their own, they were sinful. It is this basis of belief that makes the ideology of Calvinism false and heretical.
Now keep in mind, Calvin was no dummy, he knew that it did not follow logically, he also knew that it didn’t make any sense scripturally. He therefore leans very heavily on two passages for the justification of his theology to make it work and to keep questions and prying questioning from challenging his authoritative stances.
“You will say to me then, ?Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
(Romans 9:19-20 ESV)”
Indeed who can answer back to God? but then again, are we question God, or man? When somebody makes bizarre claims on the basis of scripture we are questioning man, not God.
The abandonment of logic is based on:
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1 Corinthians 1:22-25 ESV)”
The problem is that it isn’t an admonishment of wisdom logic and reason, but to put these things in as a demand. That 'if I am to believe, God must _______."

Now after this prelude, on to the ‘Perseverance of the saints’.
This doctrine states the following:
“the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God’s hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God’s stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the “last day” (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ’s promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.”

The short is, once saved, always saved, you cannot lose it by your own will. You can hate God but you cannot lose it. There in lies it’s error.

The problem isn’t the doctrine that God brings sanctification to the ‘elect’, those who hear and do the word of God. The problem is that you cannot choose it and you cannot lose it. At least theoretically, once chosen, there is NOTHING you can do to lose this salvation. The Calvinist will claim that, if you are chosen that you will by default act holy, but the doctrine doesn’t really say or imply that. Not only that, once chosen, there is nothing you can do to lose it. Technically you can do whatever you want and you cannot lose your salvation. Conversely, you can save lives, run an orphanage, give to the poor, but if you weren’t chosen, you are screwed.

This lack of choice, this complete absence and fatalistic aspect of predestination, is the downfall of this theology.

Some examples of scriptural refutations:

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
(1 Timothy 4:1-2 ESV)”

“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ?today,? that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
(Hebrews 3:12-14 ESV)”

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
(2 Peter 2:20 ESV)”

[/quote]

Pat, this is not an accurate portrayal at all, and that’s really uncommon for you. In my experience, you generally go out of your way to provide a judicious and accurate account of other belief systems; this is not a judicious or accurate account. There are NO (zero) Calvinists anywhere that believe all the things you are accusing them of. Is it deterministic? Yes, but it certainly isn’t fatalistic theology. And perseverance of the saints does NOT mean that you can “hate God” but still not lose your salvation; it means, in short, that the true recipients of God’s grace will NEVER hate God. [/quote]

I said theoretically. I also said that the Calvinist would argue that if you are under this irrepressible grace, that you will act in accordance with that, though the argument isn’t necessarily consistent.
Under the theology of TULIP, if you are elect, you cannot undo it. That means nothing you can do can remove this state of election. So theoretically at least, it’s a license to kill. Even though they would argue that under grace you will act in a Christian manner, it’s not consistent with the philosophy of TULIP and predestination.

And it is fatalistic, because if you are not elected, nothing you can do will change that state of damnation.

192

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything. >>>[/quote]He’s not saying that you CAN’T be right about ANYTHING at all Jay. That’s not it. You are on an internet forum with hundreds of people watching and declaring that absolutely everybody in the history of the world has been wrong about the very foundations of the Christian faith.

YOU have set yourself a very VERY large task indeed for which the burden of proof is unquestionably on you. It is for YOU to show all of Christendom they’ve been foundationally wrong for 2000 years. You have failed… utterly. Which is not exactly your fault because NOBODY could make the case you are here propounding. There is no case to make. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?[/quote] Jesus is not asking Nicodemus IF he is a teacher as you have suggested. He is affirming that he is and telling him that in that light he of all people should be getting what Jesus is telling him. KK is asking you an impossible to answer question from the standpoint of your position.

Jesus prohibition from calling anyone “teacher” occurs in the SAME sentence with His prohibition from calling anyone “father”. Yet He Himself addresses Nicodemus as “teacher”. This means there is a sense or senses to which Jesus is particularly referring when He tells His disciples not to address anybody other than God that way. Which happens to be the case and which is why the church universal since the dawn of this age has held that position. I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears already. =D How can you not see this?

193

[quote]butler244 wrote:
The Bible recognizes the inclination of sinful man to try to take credit for his acceptance with God. This is precise
[/quote]

Well, I’ll ask a simple question of the text above this quote, where is that in the Bible?

I’ll take this last sentence since as it seems to give the overall summary of the above (copy and pasted?) text.

The above sentence gives away the fact that you do not understand “Rome’s Dogma.” The fact is that for man to take credit for his acceptance with God is heresy. Plain jane fact. Orthodox do not believe that, and though there may be some individuals who do they need to conform their mind to Christ.

How can a baby take credit for being baptized? How can man take credit for God dying on a cross (except his sins putting him up there)? How can man take credit a free gift? How can man take credit for his own good works, when we know he does not have the strength to do good works alone?

However, this does not eliminate the requirement that man is still to work out his salvation in fear by faith working through love (faith & works, whatever you want to call it). And, that he is judged by his good works.

Thus, man is required to be in Christ and do works in Him, if those works do not burn but are pure, he will suffer no loss and will have stored up treasure in Heaven.

194

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My entire history with my old friend Pat is public record on this site and there for the clicking to anyone so inclined. I will help if need be. I was called a liar, “sick”, “Hitler”, “twisted”, “stupid”, “retarded”, “insane”, had a picture of Charles Manson posted as a reference to myself, INCESSANTLY misrepresented, cursed and cussed out with foul language and so on. I NEVER ONCE reciprocated in kind. Anybody who knows me knows that I am fully prepared to document everything I say. I did not always handle everything regarding CatholicISM in as gracious a manner as I’d hoped, but as I say the record is freely available.

Pat set me to ignore when I publicly caught him redhanded in one of his blatant falsehoods after he made it clear we would not be speaking privately. All this is still here for all to see as well.

I love the man, truly, and there’s a God in heaven who knows it is not mere talk when I say I pray the Lord’s blessing upon him.
Butler244, he’s all yours. [/quote]

Seems like a great example of being poor in the spirit, brought to you by CalvinISM.

195

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Taught and it being the logical implication is two different things.

196

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Under the theology of TULIP, if you are elect, you cannot undo it. >>>[/quote]Under the theology of TULIP you would never permanently want to. [quote]pat wrote:<<< That means nothing you can do can remove this state of election. So theoretically at least, it’s a license to kill. Even though they would argue that under grace you will act in a Christian manner, it’s not consistent with the philosophy of TULIP and predestination. >>>[/quote] The abuse of grace in the horrendous act of making it an occasion and license to sin is to make the medicine the fomentor of the very disease it is taken to cure. As the apostle so appropriately warns in the 6th of Romans [quote]1-What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2-By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3-Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4-We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.[/quote] I tell you no Pat. Scripture is replete with the teaching that a person who sins claiming that God’s grace will cover it, has not yet lived in that grace. My knowledge of Christ’s mercy and grace in savnig me from my own sin is THE driving force of my existence and moves me to declare daily war on the remaining corruption in my heart and life. [quote]pat wrote:<<< And it is fatalistic, because if you are not elected, nothing you can do will change that state of damnation. [/quote] It is NOT fatalistic because it is NOT random and arbitrary. "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. There is a holy, righteous and in every way correct reason for every detail of God’s eternal decree. I take GREAT comfort in that and it induces in me the highest of praise for the wisdom and power of my magnificent master. [quote]pat wrote:<<< if you are not elected, nothing you can do will change that state of damnation. [/quote] I have tried to explain this to you in the past to no avail. NOBODY will EVER “try” to be saved who is not. Because NOBODY will EVER seek God for salvation who IS NOT of His eternal elect. God sweetly subdues the stubborn hearts of those upon whom He has set His sovereign redeeming love and grace. He doesn’t grab them by the ankle and drag them into the kingdom kicking and screaming “BUT I DON’T WANNA BE SAVED!” to which God replies “now you look here you, you’re comin whether you like it or not.” No sir. Their willingness is HIS GIFT.

In the same way there is no such thing as a single person who is found pounding on the door begging “PLEASE PLEASE CAN I REPENT AND BE SAVED AND COME INTO YOUR KINGDOM!” whom God either ignores or replies with “Sorry, you ain’t one of my elect, go next door to your father the devil” No again sir. ALL those and ONLY those which have been given Him by the Father WILL come to the Son and of them He will lose none, but raise them up on the last day. THAT is the reformed teaching in a nutshell. It WAS the most prevalent overall theological view held in the colonies at the time of the revolution. It is NOT fringe and sick and bizarre.

It IS the doctrine of the reformation and has roots all the way through church history and especially in Augustine of Hippo. A “doctor” of YOUR church. I have no way to prove this and it would have taken at least 2 full grown men both hands and both feet, but if somebody could have pried Aquinas face outta Aristotle’s posterior for a minute, I really believe he would have been here too.

197

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My entire history with my old friend Pat is public record on this site and there for the clicking to anyone so inclined. I will help if need be. I was called a liar, “sick”, “Hitler”, “twisted”, “stupid”, “retarded”, “insane”, had a picture of Charles Manson posted as a reference to myself, INCESSANTLY misrepresented, cursed and cussed out with foul language and so on. I NEVER ONCE reciprocated in kind. Anybody who knows me knows that I am fully prepared to document everything I say. I did not always handle everything regarding CatholicISM in as gracious a manner as I’d hoped, but as I say the record is freely available. Pat set me to ignore when I publicly caught him redhanded in one of his blatant falsehoods after he made it clear we would not be speaking privately. All this is still here for all to see as well.
I love the man, truly, and there’s a God in heaven who knows it is not mere talk when I say I pray the Lord’s blessing upon him.
Butler244, he’s all yours. [/quote]Seems like a great example of being poor in the spirit, brought to you by CalvinISM. [/quote]Might I prevail upon you dearest Christopher to further elucidate the point of this statement which has, much to my horror and dismay, escaped me? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]pat wrote:<<< you cannot lose it by your own will. You can hate God but you cannot lose it. There in lies it’s error. >>>[/quote]Absolutely false. NO proponent of reformed theology has EVER taught this. EVER. [/quote]Taught and it being the logical implication is two different things.[/quote]This statement is formally correct but wholly inapplicable in this case Chris.

198

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything. >>>[/quote]He’s not saying that you CAN’T be right about ANYTHING at all Jay. That’s not it. You are on an internet forum with hundreds of people watching and declaring that absolutely everybody in the history of the world has been wrong about the very foundations of the Christian faith.

YOU have set yourself a very VERY large task indeed for which the burden of proof is unquestionably on you. It is for YOU to show all of Christendom they’ve been foundationally wrong for 2000 years. You have failed… utterly. Which is not exactly your fault because NOBODY could make the case you are here propounding. There is no case to make. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?[/quote] Jesus is not asking Nicodemus IF he is a teacher as you have suggested. He is affirming that he is and telling him that in that light he of all people should be getting what Jesus is telling him. KK is asking you an impossible to answer question from the standpoint of your position.

Jesus prohibition from calling anyone “teacher” occurs in the SAME sentence with His prohibition from calling anyone “father”. Yet He Himself addresses Nicodemus as “teacher”. This means there is a sense or senses to which Jesus is particularly referring when He tells His disciples not to address anybody other than God that way. Which happens to be the case and which is why the church universal since the dawn of this age has held that position. I’m gonna come down there and box yer ears already. =D How can you not see this?
[/quote]

PRECISELY. That completely sums up my point. Grammatically, only the latter half of the sentence (the second clause) is a question; Jesus AFFIRMS that Nicodemus IS a teacher of Israel in the first clause, then expresses surprise at the fact that he doesn’t know these things in the second clause. In other words, Jesus is not saying, “are you really a teacher of Israel, since you don’t know these things?” Rather, Jesus is saying, “You’re a teacher of Israel; how can you not know these things?” That’s the force of the Greek conjunction kai in this sentence.

199

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

I left this one alone before in the hopes that you would go back and read it again and realize that Christ was calling Nicodemus’ ‘rabbi’ status into question. Here was a man who taught the word of God, but didn’t have the foggiest idea as to what Christ was talking about; “Are you a teacher of Israel and you know not these things?”
[/quote]

Thanks for your consideration, but it’s you who needs to go back and reread John 3:10 in Greek. Well, since you don’t know Greek, I’ll just tell you what the text says - “You are a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not know these things?” Jesus’ expresses his incredulity at the fact that, despite Nicodemus’ status as teacher, he still doesn’t know these things. The first clause is a statement; the connecting kai in this sort of construction denotes “and yet,” and signals the beginning of the actual question.

[/quote]

I is apparent that you are of the mindset that I couldn’t ever possibly be right about anything.

Why would you state the exact same thing I did, but tell me I’m wrong in the process?[/quote]

It’s not whether you can be, it’s you’ve chosen not to be… Big difference.

200

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< That’s the force of the Greek conjunction kai in this sentence.
[/quote]And you being KingKAI certainly oughta know.