JP, I love ya man, but there is just no way you are going to believe this stuff 10 years from now. How is it possible for you not to understand that one of those four gospels was written bu a man who also wrote the acts of the apostles wherein Paul is given the strongest possible endorsement?
[quote]butler244 wrote:
Pat, I surely hope you aren’t serious bout my argument being that “Paul saved souls”. Seriously?
[quote]“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
[/quote]
This only confirms what I am saying. People already know God exists, but they suppress the truth. No amount of deductive reasoning or well outlines arguments are going to bring anyone closer to heaven, because we are blinded by truth suppressing sin. The word is the only effective way of presenting the true God (Romans 10:17 Faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the word of God)
[/quote]
That’s not what it says. It says His attributes have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. It does not say that people defacto know God exists, but his attributes are clearly perceived. Now, without taking into account the things that have been made, and what it takes to have made them, one can deduce that God exists, but it is not done without effort. You still have to connect the dots to get to that conclusion and that is done by reason.
You also must consider who Paul was talking about, which is the Jews who lost their way and went to worshiping idols and such. Though they had both divine revelation and if nothing else, plain reason, they still made things for themselves to worship.
Without revelation and reason, people do not know that God exists. When Paul says that “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world”, means that much has been studied, learned, written, etc. about it since creation, that people have put in the work and that information was and is available, by those who came before them. And aside from divine revelation, it was the application of reason where this came about.
If this notion that God exists and everybody knows it were true, then there would never have been polytheism, or ‘god of gaps’ interpretation of the world around them from the ancients. Though they saw His divine attributes, they were unable to discern His existence without revelation or the application of reason.
Now there is the question of intent. So you say, “No amount of deductive reasoning or well outlines arguments are going to bring anyone closer to heaven, because we are blinded by truth suppressing sin.” Well that’s all well and good, but that’s not what I am doing. I am not trying to ‘bring anyone closer to heaven’, by way of deductive reasoning. That’s a vast overestimate of the medium we are dealing with here. I am explaining and defending theism to those who don’t believe or perhaps understand it. You do this by parsing out the arguments, discussion and engagement. This is not an engagement of ‘trying to save their souls’. For crying out loud this is a bodybuilding forum. The idea that you are going to reach through your keyboard and save their soul is a vast overreaching at the least, and arrogant as hell at the most.
I am engaging in reasoned discussions with people who are being reasonable and intelligent and are asking and responding genuinely and honestly.
If you want to push them away, go ahead and tell them they know God exists and they are just denying it and that they need to get on their knees and repent and they will be saved… I have seen in tried, the effect is often the opposite of what is desired.
If you want to save their souls, go crazy, save them. I won’t stand in your way. More than likely they will tell you to buzz off, but try it. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe all you need to say to them is that they need to accept the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Savior and repent and they will just concede and be saved. If you can do that, I will take my hat off to you…
As for me, I am content to discuss religion and philosophy with people who are interested in the discussion. If it yields a good discussion, I am satisfied with that.
I’ll let you bring them closer to heaven.
[quote]
1 cor 1:21 “It pleased God by the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe”
Keep it simple, that leaves no room for Paul or anyone else to take credit for “saving souls”[/quote]
I am keeping it simple. I am just not foolish enough to believe that thumping the Bible in the faces of people who don’t believe in it or give it regard, will have any effect. If nothing else, it’s likely to push them away as that is the behavior demonstrated by Christians that they are saying they hate the most.
So go ahead and do exactly what they hate and tell me how it goes. Actually, I think I will see it pretty clearly when they tell you to get stuffed…
As an aside, as the OP of this thread, I have yet to see you post a convincing argument for why your religion is better.
I do have a question, you don’t have to answer it if you don’t want to but are you an Arminianist, or Calvinist? Or something else all together?
[quote]butler244 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]butler244 wrote:
2. The fact that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing hinged on mans performance. There are christians who believe that salvation is earned, but I believe the biblical perspective highlights man’s inability to reach out to be saved. Salvation is not earned, but is a free gift. I cannot think of a single human who, when making up a religion would make himself unable to do anything to merit God’s favour.
[/quote]
False dichotomy. The bible clearly says, “work out your own salvation,” (Phil 2:12) this is not because we can earn salvation, nor does it mean that saving grace is not a free gift, but that man is judged by his works (1 Cor 3:13-17), tested by fire. What this does mean is that we can merit salvation, distinct from earning salvation.[/quote]
The doctrines of justification and sanctification are both necessary components of the Christian faith. There is no such thing as a justified but unsanctified sinner and no such thing as a sanctified but unjustified sinner. Both are essential. There is, however, a tendency in the church to confuse the doctrines, to combine the doctrines, and to fail to recognize the distinction between the two. Justification is concerned with Christâ??s work for the sinner as the ground of acceptance with our holy God. Sanctification is the work of the Spirit in the justified sinner whereby he is conformed more and more into the image of the Lord Jesus.
The dogma of Rome is an excellent illustration of a failure to recognize the distinction between the two doctrines. Rome has reduced the distinction between these two truths and therefore teaches that justification before God includes our works of obedience. Protestants run the risk of such confusion also. There is an emphasis today on â??living the gospel.â?? While I think I understand the sentiment behind such a statement, there is a tendency to move toward Rome in such thinking. The gospel, strictly defined (see for instance 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), is the historic, revealed message concerning Jesus Christ. It is that record of events which focus upon Christâ??s life, death, and resurrection for sinners. Technically, one cannot live the good news of Christâ??s life, death, and resurrection for sinners â?? it is a message, it is a declaration, it is good news. One can live in light of it, one can let his conduct be worthy of it, one can pursue holiness; but to live out the events of Christâ??s redemptive work on behalf of sinners, is simply not our calling.
When we preach the gospel, we are preaching a historic, revealed and Christ-centered message concerning His doing, dying, and rising again for sinners. We are preaching the finished work of Christ as the only foundation for acceptance with God. We are preaching pardon of sins and imputation of righteousness grounded solely in the active and passive obedience of Christ. We are preaching the glory of God in the reconciling of sinners to Himself by Jesus Christ. Period. Full stop. No additions, no subtractions, no supplements. When we preach the effects of the gospel, or the transforming power of the gospel, we instruct the people of God regarding the ethical implications of having believed the truth. If we do not keep these categories distinct, we run the risk of Romanism, Galatianism, or any other â??ismâ?? that includes manâ??s performance in his acceptance with God.
The Bible recognizes the inclination of sinful man to try to take credit for his acceptance with God. This is precise
[/quote]
When you do a copy and paste job, don’t plagerize and paste it as if it’s your own words. Give Jim Butler his credit for the words you directly copied and pasted off if his site:
The fact that this was a copy and paste job, and not an argument of your own making. If you are going to make arguments for ‘sola scriptura’ or faith alone salvation, use your own brain and if you use links, give credit to those links. I got counter arguments as long as my arm, but if you prefer a cut and paste war, I really don’t have to forth any effort.
If Jim Butler wishes to join the discussion, I would welcome it. But I have to question your sincerity if you are reducing to tactics.
I get really suspicious of people when they do stuff like this. And I don’t appreciate the tacit implication that I (or we) are that stupid as not to recognize it.
Pat,
The OP is my son. I have been a member of T-Nation for a few years, but haven’t been here for a few years. I looked at this thread because my son told me about it. I think I saw that he said he did not write the blog post in question, but took from his church’s website.
We are Calvinists, specifically, Reformed Baptists. Our confession of faith is the London Baptist Confession of 1689, a historically orthodox confession in Christianity.
butler244 can fight his own battles. I just wanted to clarify that he did in fact state that he didn’t write the blog post in question.
Jim Butler
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]butler244 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]butler244 wrote:
2. The fact that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing hinged on mans performance. There are christians who believe that salvation is earned, but I believe the biblical perspective highlights man’s inability to reach out to be saved. Salvation is not earned, but is a free gift. I cannot think of a single human who, when making up a religion would make himself unable to do anything to merit God’s favour.
[/quote]
False dichotomy. The bible clearly says, “work out your own salvation,” (Phil 2:12) this is not because we can earn salvation, nor does it mean that saving grace is not a free gift, but that man is judged by his works (1 Cor 3:13-17), tested by fire. What this does mean is that we can merit salvation, distinct from earning salvation.[/quote]
The doctrines of justification and sanctification are both necessary components of the Christian faith. There is no such thing as a justified but unsanctified sinner and no such thing as a sanctified but unjustified sinner. Both are essential. There is, however, a tendency in the church to confuse the doctrines, to combine the doctrines, and to fail to recognize the distinction between the two. Justification is concerned with Christ�¢??s work for the sinner as the ground of acceptance with our holy God. Sanctification is the work of the Spirit in the justified sinner whereby he is conformed more and more into the image of the Lord Jesus.
The dogma of Rome is an excellent illustration of a failure to recognize the distinction between the two doctrines. Rome has reduced the distinction between these two truths and therefore teaches that justification before God includes our works of obedience. Protestants run the risk of such confusion also. There is an emphasis today on �¢??living the gospel.�¢?? While I think I understand the sentiment behind such a statement, there is a tendency to move toward Rome in such thinking. The gospel, strictly defined (see for instance 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), is the historic, revealed message concerning Jesus Christ. It is that record of events which focus upon Christ�¢??s life, death, and resurrection for sinners. Technically, one cannot live the good news of Christ�¢??s life, death, and resurrection for sinners �¢?? it is a message, it is a declaration, it is good news. One can live in light of it, one can let his conduct be worthy of it, one can pursue holiness; but to live out the events of Christ�¢??s redemptive work on behalf of sinners, is simply not our calling.
When we preach the gospel, we are preaching a historic, revealed and Christ-centered message concerning His doing, dying, and rising again for sinners. We are preaching the finished work of Christ as the only foundation for acceptance with God. We are preaching pardon of sins and imputation of righteousness grounded solely in the active and passive obedience of Christ. We are preaching the glory of God in the reconciling of sinners to Himself by Jesus Christ. Period. Full stop. No additions, no subtractions, no supplements. When we preach the effects of the gospel, or the transforming power of the gospel, we instruct the people of God regarding the ethical implications of having believed the truth. If we do not keep these categories distinct, we run the risk of Romanism, Galatianism, or any other �¢??ism�¢?? that includes man�¢??s performance in his acceptance with God.
The Bible recognizes the inclination of sinful man to try to take credit for his acceptance with God. This is precise
[/quote]
When you do a copy and paste job, don’t plagerize and paste it as if it’s your own words. Give Jim Butler his credit for the words you directly copied and pasted off if his site:
The fact that this was a copy and paste job, and not an argument of your own making. If you are going to make arguments for ‘sola scriptura’ or faith alone salvation, use your own brain and if you use links, give credit to those links. I got counter arguments as long as my arm, but if you prefer a cut and paste war, I really don’t have to forth any effort.
If Jim Butler wishes to join the discussion, I would welcome it. But I have to question your sincerity if you are reducing to tactics.
I get really suspicious of people when they do stuff like this. And I don’t appreciate the tacit implication that I (or we) are that stupid as not to recognize it.
[/quote]
He said that be copied that from his father’s site in a message to Tirib, Pat.
[quote]jpb wrote:
Pat,
The OP is my son. I have been a member of T-Nation for a few years, but haven’t been here for a few years. I looked at this thread because my son told me about it. I think I saw that he said he did not write the blog post in question, but took from his church’s website.
We are Calvinists, specifically, Reformed Baptists. Our confession of faith is the London Baptist Confession of 1689, a historically orthodox confession in Christianity.
butler244 can fight his own battles. I just wanted to clarify that he did in fact state that he didn’t write the blog post in question.
Jim Butler
[/quote]OUTSTANDING!!! From a perusal of the titles alone of your many sermons at sermonaudio, I rejoice to see that the Lord our God has seen fit to put this young man and his beautiful new wife in committed and capable hands indeed. It was my great blessing to have conversed with your boy last night and I look forward in a few minutes here to starting your sermon entitled “The Two Claims” at his recommendation. I do pray that he keep himself covered in the full armor of God as this is as hostile an environment as he will likely ever find himself in.
[quote] When you do a copy and paste job, don’t plagerize and paste it as if it’s your own words. Give Jim Butler his credit for the words you directly copied and pasted off if his site:
[/quote]
Just happened to steal an article written by a guy with the same last name as me 
Honestly I did not have time to give a full response so I thought I’d slap up a article to keep the discussion going.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
JP, I love ya man, but there is just no way you are going to believe this stuff 10 years from now. How is it possible for you not to understand that one of those four gospels was written bu a man who also wrote the acts of the apostles wherein Paul is given the strongest possible endorsement?[/quote]
You didn’t answer the question. It wasn’t really intended for you, anyway, but a straightforward answer is always appreciated.
According to Paul’s own words, you should curse Luke (and the Apostles) for writing a different Gospel than what Paul taught. “…even we, or an angel from Heaven…”
True or false?
It wasn’t a different gospel JP.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:@ butler244: [Pat’s} gettin a bit riled now. You can tell he is when he begins to horribly misrepresent what you said 3 inches below where you said it. >>>[/quote]See what I mean?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
He said that be copied that from his father’s site in a message to Tirib, Pat. [/quote]
Fair enough, I did not see that.
I see, now I know what I am up against, so rather than play perpetual defense and having to deflect falsehoods and misunderstandings of what I am saying while quietly masking the false doctrines of Calvinism are wrapped in the cloak of spreading the gospel. I am going on offense.
For those who do not know, the Reformed movement is a retreat to extremely conservative Calvinism from yore. Think Puritanism, if this brings to mind the Salem Witch Trials, then you are thinking of the right group, though I don’t believe this movement is ready to grab the rope just yet.
Let me explain what is going on then. While most Christians can view and treat other Christians with love and respect, and not condemnation. This cannot be said for this reformed movement.
While the unsuspecting Christian, evangelical or Catholic may be engaging it what may appear as a discourse among equals; exchanging thoughts and ideas in order to gain understanding and grow in love for one another and understanding one another in Christ, this is not the case with a fully entrenched Calvinist. For Catholics in particular are viewed as damned and pitiable if not disgusting pigs, as the Reformed dogma teaches that the RCC is the whore of Babylon as stated in the book of Revelation.
So the dogma teaches that the Church that Jesus founded in MT 16:18, whom He said that the gates of hell will not prevail against, is of Satan.
Now of course, this requires a whole lot of revisionism to justify, but when your justifying false dogma no facts shall stand in the way. The book of Revelation is highly symbolic and has many, many varying interpretations. Anybody who thinks they have nailed it is full of it, period.
All this is a long winded way of saying that a Christian to Christian dialog when dealing with somebody who has long condemned you is impossible. While the poor unsuspecting Catholic looks forward to an open and honest dialog, the other has already condemned them to hell and speaks to them as if they are already a creature of hell.
Since what is going to be expressed in a guise of trying to bring the Gospel of Christ, is actually the dogma of Calvinism. While under the guise of the gospel, the dogma of Calvinism is what is actually being expressed to the detriment of scripture. The dogma of Calvinism is held in higher regard than the scripture, because much of it is not scriptural at all, but taken out of context to justify the dogma.
So let’s take a deeper look. Calvinism is founded on the principals of something called TULIP, the 5 ‘pillars’, if you will of Calvinism. I will break it up since this is already a long post, let’s start with ‘T’.
- 'T’otal Depravity - This is the teaching that man’s heart is inherently evil and that because of sin. That man is born into this state of complete and total separation from God.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith states it thusly:
“Our first parents by the sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all; all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all faculties, and parts of soul, and body.”
While there is plenty of scriptural evidence of the sinfulness of man, none support the default evilness of man. For example:
“See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.
(Ecclesiastes 7:29 ESV)”
“but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.
(Isaiah 59:2 ESV)”
"and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 18:3-4 ESV)”
I do not want to fill the pages with tons of scripture, only to provide enough to show that God did not create man “Totally Depraved”, but man chose to separate through sin.
Since there are 5 parts I will break it up in to 5 posts. And we can examine each pillar even more closely, but to understand what and why this is believed, it must be understood what the underlying belief for all of it is: Predestination. Calvinists believe that God has already condemned or saved everybody in advance. You have no choice in the matter. You come out totally depraved, and God has either chosen to save you and their is nothing you can do about it. You actually have no choice in the matter.
So Calvinism teaches that God made men evil, that he’s not only the author of sin, but has predestined man to evil.
Each pillar comes back to this over riding theme, that God made men evil and hates the evil men he created… THIS IS NOT SCRIPTURAL, but a perversion of it.
You want to know what is going on ‘behind the scenes’, this is it. The fatalistic, hopeless doctrine of “Double Predestination”.
Double predestination means that not only has God chosen who is going to heaven, but he has damned those going to hell, through no fault of their own.
More later…
Pat, I’m going to church right now but I will try and respond to your post later. Trust me, I don’t know what your experience with Calvinism has been, seems pretty bad, but I want you to know this isn’t about condemnation from me…I’m in it for the discussion primarily.
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.
I did not even mention calvinism, or quote Calvin, in this entire thread until you asked. We believe in the authority of scripture and that has been the only thing I have appealed to in any of my arguments.
I was not even looking for a debate over the five points, just wanted to question how you reconcile a few of your views with the bible.
I am going to give you some texts that say EXACTLY that. Please though, before automatically telling me I’m ripping them out of their context, go and read the context.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Romans 8:7,8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things,and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
Ephesians 2:1-5 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience? 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body[a] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.[b] 4 But[c] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ?by grace you have been saved
That last text in Ephesians uses the word “DEAD”. When you think DEAD what does that make you think of? We do not meet Jesus half way, or contribute anything at all. DEAD people cannot reach out at all…CAUSE THEY ARE DEAD. If the phrasing here was “you being kinda sick in your sins” then you may have a case.
I am done now. I am gonna leave it at this. I do not wanna go tit for tat on all five points. If anyone reading this wants to read more about the 5 points, without Pat’s well poisoning comments about witch burning and Calvin worship, see Canons of Dordt, The Westminster Confession of Faith, or the London Baptist Confession of Faith. To condemn reformed theology as “barely christian” does not seem very loving or respectful on your part.
Okay Part 2 on the pillars of Calvinism. Now in the first part we examined the pillar of Calvinism which is Total Depravity. Now keep in mind the overriding theme behind Calvinism is Predestination. Now, this is something that strangely enough that Calvinists have in common with Atheism in that they both believe in determination. The difference between the two is that under Calvinism, the determinism is of a divine nature. That God for ordained the fate of man, while under atheism it’s merely a function of the previous moment defining the next.
Now something else you will notice is the abandonment of reason. This is no accident. The argument against reason is as a man, “who are you to question God?”. Nevermind, that it is man we question not God. But it is necessary to abandon reason for the next tenet to work. The only way to reconcile ‘Unconditional Election’ with the nature of God and with scripture is to abandon reason. That God can be the author of evil, foreordain and create evil men to condemn them to hell before they’ve even drawn a breath, and be a good God who requires us to love our neighbor is to abandon reason, and trust that God knows what he’s doing and you don’t. Nevermind that it does not make a lick of sense reasonably speaking, nor reconciling it with what scripture says…
Unconditional Election - This doctrine states that God chose whom to reveal his gospel to and thusly whom are saved, through no merit of the person themselves. Man is merely a puppet, if you are saved you have had the gospel revealed to you and you will do ‘good works’ as an example to others that your were marked for salvation. God has picked specific people from the foundation of the world whom he will save and the rest can go to hell, literally.
Because God has chosen out his elect, nobody can do anything to save themselves. If you were selected to be damned, nothing you can do. No amount of love of God or neighbor, prayer, good works, or anything can save you, you were damned before you were born.
These notions are taken from excerpts from scripture such as:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
(Jeremiah 1:5 ESV)
or
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
(Ephesians 1:3-5 ESV)”
Now this belief is all encompassing and non-discriminatory, all non-Christians have been predestined to hell, children if God did not pick them, because of their default sinful nature can be predestined to hell, yes those starving kids in Africa who are to sick to shoo the flies away from their mouth as they lay their dying with nobody to care for them? Yep, strait to hell. God did not reveal his gospel to them so screw them.
This again comes from a selective reading of the scriptures and flies in the face of what the gospel is all about, forsaking the reading of some scriptures for the discriminatory use of others.
For instance, it flies in the face of major scriptures like John 3:16-17
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
(John 3:16-17 ESV)”
or
“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(Romans 5:18 ESV)”
For unconditional election to be true, then these verses in scripture must be false. However, if you abandon reason, it does not matter because it does not need to make any sense.
Now this is not the same as ‘Divine Election’. There is nothing magical about divine election, it just means that some people have had the gospel revealed to them and others not. This is not more complicated than being born into a particular race. Some people are born black, some white, some Asian, etc.
It does not speak to the eternal condition of a person. The gospel can be revealed, but rejected. You can be born a Christian and reject it. Or you can be here the gospel and follow it. Divine election does not reject freewill. Unconditional election does, which is why it’s a false doctrine of man and not of God.
This also leads to other complications when dealing with Calvinists. This idea of ‘spreading the Gospel’ or trying to get people ‘saved’, isn’t really a matter of actually leading you on a path to salvation. It’s more a litmus test to see if you are one of the elect or not. If you reject it, you are one of the damned. Since you have no choice in your own salvation it can only be discerned whether your one of the elect or not. If you perceive arrogance, keep in mind you’re dealing with a chosen one. You’re just a pitiable fool awaiting a lake of fire, and there’s not a single damn thing you can do about it.
Now don’t worry, as an atheist or an agnostic, or a deist, you’re merely going to hell…As a Catholic, I am holding the door open for you and poking you with a pitch fork on your way in. It doesn’t matter how much I love God, or my neighbor, or how hard I try and how much I serve God…
Why do you have to abandon reason to follow this faith? 'Cause it doesn’t make any sense, scripturally or logically.
Just wait 'til we get to ‘Limited Atonement’…That’s a duesy!!
[quote]pat wrote:
Okay Part 2 on the pillars of Calvinism. Now in the first part we examined the pillar of Calvinism which is Total Depravity. Now keep in mind the overriding theme behind Calvinism is Predestination. Now, this is something that strangely enough that Calvinists have in common with Atheism in that they both believe in determination. The difference between the two is that under Calvinism, the determinism is of a divine nature. That God for ordained the fate of man, while under atheism it’s merely a function of the previous moment defining the next.
Now something else you will notice is the abandonment of reason. This is no accident. The argument against reason is as a man, “who are you to question God?”. Nevermind, that it is man we question not God. But it is necessary to abandon reason for the next tenet to work. The only way to reconcile ‘Unconditional Election’ with the nature of God and with scripture is to abandon reason. That God can be the author of evil, foreordain and create evil men to condemn them to hell before they’ve even drawn a breath, and be a good God who requires us to love our neighbor is to abandon reason, and trust that God knows what he’s doing and you don’t. Nevermind that it does not make a lick of sense reasonably speaking, nor reconciling it with what scripture says…
Unconditional Election - This doctrine states that God chose whom to reveal his gospel to and thusly whom are saved, through no merit of the person themselves. Man is merely a puppet, if you are saved you have had the gospel revealed to you and you will do ‘good works’ as an example to others that your were marked for salvation. God has picked specific people from the foundation of the world whom he will save and the rest can go to hell, literally.
Because God has chosen out his elect, nobody can do anything to save themselves. If you were selected to be damned, nothing you can do. No amount of love of God or neighbor, prayer, good works, or anything can save you, you were damned before you were born.
These notions are taken from excerpts from scripture such as:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
(Jeremiah 1:5 ESV)
or
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
(Ephesians 1:3-5 ESV)”
Now this belief is all encompassing and non-discriminatory, all non-Christians have been predestined to hell, children if God did not pick them, because of their default sinful nature can be predestined to hell, yes those starving kids in Africa who are to sick to shoo the flies away from their mouth as they lay their dying with nobody to care for them? Yep, strait to hell. God did not reveal his gospel to them so screw them.
This again comes from a selective reading of the scriptures and flies in the face of what the gospel is all about, forsaking the reading of some scriptures for the discriminatory use of others.
For instance, it flies in the face of major scriptures like John 3:16-17
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
(John 3:16-17 ESV)”
or
“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(Romans 5:18 ESV)”
For unconditional election to be true, then these verses in scripture must be false. However, if you abandon reason, it does not matter because it does not need to make any sense.
Now this is not the same as ‘Divine Election’. There is nothing magical about divine election, it just means that some people have had the gospel revealed to them and others not. This is not more complicated than being born into a particular race. Some people are born black, some white, some Asian, etc.
It does not speak to the eternal condition of a person. The gospel can be revealed, but rejected. You can be born a Christian and reject it. Or you can be here the gospel and follow it. Divine election does not reject freewill. Unconditional election does, which is why it’s a false doctrine of man and not of God.
This also leads to other complications when dealing with Calvinists. This idea of ‘spreading the Gospel’ or trying to get people ‘saved’, isn’t really a matter of actually leading you on a path to salvation. It’s more a litmus test to see if you are one of the elect or not. If you reject it, you are one of the damned. Since you have no choice in your own salvation it can only be discerned whether your one of the elect or not. If you perceive arrogance, keep in mind you’re dealing with a chosen one. You’re just a pitiable fool awaiting a lake of fire, and there’s not a single damn thing you can do about it.
Now don’t worry, as an atheist or an agnostic, or a deist, you’re merely going to hell…As a Catholic, I am holding the door open for you and poking you with a pitch fork on your way in. It doesn’t matter how much I love God, or my neighbor, or how hard I try and how much I serve God…
Why do you have to abandon reason to follow this faith? 'Cause it doesn’t make any sense, scripturally or logically.
Just wait 'til we get to ‘Limited Atonement’…That’s a duesy!!
[/quote]
Pat, come on man. I’m not a Calvinist and you know that, but this is a caricature, not an accurate portrayal of Calvinism.
[quote]butler244 wrote:
I did not even mention calvinism, or quote Calvin, in this entire thread until you asked. We believe in the authority of scripture and that has been the only thing I have appealed to in any of my arguments.
I was not even looking for a debate over the five points, just wanted to question how you reconcile a few of your views with the bible.
I am going to give you some texts that say EXACTLY that. Please though, before automatically telling me I’m ripping them out of their context, go and read the context.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Romans 8:7,8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things,and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
Ephesians 2:1-5 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience? 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body[a] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.[b] 4 But[c] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ?by grace you have been saved
That last text in Ephesians uses the word “DEAD”. When you think DEAD what does that make you think of? We do not meet Jesus half way, or contribute anything at all. DEAD people cannot reach out at all…CAUSE THEY ARE DEAD. If the phrasing here was “you being kinda sick in your sins” then you may have a case.
I am done now. I am gonna leave it at this. I do not wanna go tit for tat on all five points. If anyone reading this wants to read more about the 5 points, without Pat’s well poisoning comments about witch burning and Calvin worship, see Canons of Dordt, The Westminster Confession of Faith, or the London Baptist Confession of Faith. To condemn reformed theology as “barely christian” does not seem very loving or respectful on your part.[/b]
[/quote]
I am just getting started… I have been more than civil allowing you all to bash Catholicism, bash my comments as un-scriptural, or telling me that “my” theology is fake, nevermind that I wasn’t talking about theology… So it’s okay for you to critcize my faith, or to publicly question if I am even Christian or whether I know what the purpose of the Crucifixion in salvation history?
Certainly weren’t afraid to post a big anti-Catholic diatribe, but yet if I call out Calvinism, you are all affronted? Would you not consider your anti-Catholicism as a loving act because you are trying to save me, would you not? Tirib, tried for years until I had enough of his disingenuousness, arrogance, and dishonest arguing tactics. I have a sense that you may have been perhaps recruited, it seems odd that you who had some few posts and interactions around here would start such a divisive thread. Whatever it is, there is an angle here. It’s an odd collection of like minded ‘Reformed’ Calvinists, suddenly coalescing in this thread. I am certainly suspicious on how it all came together.
I am dumb, but I am not that dumb.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]butler244 wrote:
The gospel, strictly defined (see for instance 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), is the historic, revealed message concerning Jesus Christ.[/quote]
I have an issue that I’d like to address here, if you would hear it.
Just after this statement from Paul (that he proclaimed the gospel), he proceeds to give an account of Christ visiting His disciples after His resurrection(1 Cor 15:5-8), and gets that account wrong (that is, his account does not agree with the account in the four actual Gospels). Then in Galatians 1:8, he says that if anybody (“even we, or an angel from Heaven”) contradicts him, to put a curse upon them.
So is he instructing his churches to reject the Gospels and curse the Apostles? They disagree with the gospel that he preaches.
[/quote]
JP, your argument here is extremely fallacious. There are four assumptions underlying it, all of which are questionable and some of which are completely false. They are…
- Paul’s account of Jesus’ resurrection appearances contradicts the “account” in the four “actual gospels.”
- The four gospels present a unified and coherent account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
- “Gospel” when Paul uses it means the same thing as when applied to that genre of canonical texts about the life of Jesus that we call gospel.
- If the gospels and Paul disagree, Paul must be the one in the wrong.
You are not sufficiently analyzing your own presuppositions. If you are presenting these statements as some kind of argument meant to convince someone, then you have to demonstrate why we should share your presuppositions. As I am about to demonstrate, however, in each individual case, your assumption is either flat wrong or completely questionable.
-
It is questionable whether Paul’s account CONTRADICTS the accounts of the four gospels. We’ve been over this before, but I’ll say it again - you know as well as I do that the gospels do not present comprehensive accounts of the events of Jesus’ life. The gospel authors left things out all the time; they only mentioned events that fit with their particular overarching interests in the composition of their narratives. Consequently, unless a particular gospel author uses clear temporal markers, you cannot establish an exact chronology. Similarly, PAUL does not claim to establish an exact chronology of every person Jesus appeared to and exactly when he appeared to them. Rather, Paul’s point in this passage is to convince the Corinthians (who are questioning the notion of the resurrection of the dead) that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and to do so, Paul notes all the witnesses who saw Jesus. Paul thus emphasizes the hierarchy of witnesses - rather than noting that a woman saw Jesus first, Paul starts his discussion with Peter, not to imply that Peter was the first to see the resurrected Lord, but rather that Peter, the most eminent apostle, saw Jesus BEFORE the other apostles. In fact, Luke’s account confirms this aspect of Paul’s chronology - the two disciples that Jesus met with on the road to Emmaus return to Jerusalem to find that Peter (Simon) has already seen Jesus (Luke 24:32-34).
-
Your belief that the gospels present a unified account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances is FALSE. As I noted in the previous paragraph, the gospels authors were selective in which events they discussed and the order in which they detailed them, so determining an exact chronology is difficult. Mark 16 (the original gospel ends at verse 8a; everything afterwards is a later addition) says that three women saw the empty tomb, and these women did not speak of their encounter with an angel, whereas Matthew 28 mentions only two women, and those women immediately run to relay their information to the apostles. And John’s gospel mentions ONLY Mary Magdalene of the women having gone to the tomb. So which story is accurate? I, of course, have an answer for this, but your arbitrary methods will not be able to present a consistent answer.
-
When Paul uses the word “gospel,” he is NOT referring to the genre of canonical texts. Paul most likely wrote, ministered, and died before the first gospel was written. Consequently, as you have failed to note before, he had ALREADY made his mark on the Christian church by the time the gospels were written. Therefore, contrary to your claims, there is no way the gospels reflect a truly non-Pauline Christianity, and that INCLUDES the words of Jesus.
-
Building off of the first point, Paul wrote closer to the time that the events in the gospels took place than the gospel writers. Consequently, IF Paul and the gospel writers disagree in their accounts (which they ultimately don’t, but here I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt), then why would I trust those who wrote about the events way later than Paul and SEEM to have disagreed with each other on various points rather than Paul?
And once again, you have consistently failed to demonstrate that Paul and the Apostles disagreed with one another.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Pat, come on man. I’m not a Calvinist and you know that, but this is a caricature, not an accurate portrayal of Calvinism. [/quote]I mean this as no insult to Pat, but to him it is not a caricature. This is how he sees it and no amount of persuasion will have any effect. Well, lemme qualify. No amount of MY persuasion has ever had any. Also, the governing principle of Calvinism is the sovereign HOLY Godhood of God. Calvin himself didn’t even concentrate on predestination in his institutes.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I have a sense that you may have been perhaps recruited, it seems odd that you who had some few posts and interactions around here would start such a divisive thread. Whatever it is, there is an angle here. It’s an odd collection of like minded ‘Reformed’ Calvinists, suddenly coalescing in this thread. I am certainly suspicious on how it all came together.
I am dumb, but I am not that dumb.[/quote]First Pat, you are NOT dumb. I have read with gripping interest some of your posts on physics and learned from them. You can knock that off. Nobody thinks that. Also, it is not totally unreasonable for you to suspect this, but I will say it one time only. I had never heard of this fella or his father in my life until this thread. I am now very happy that I HAVE heard of them.