Why's Your Religion Better?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

Next up in the Calvinism discussion, is the ‘L’ in TULIP. L stands for Limited Atonement. Keeping in mind predestination, the inherent evil of man which God himself foreordained, created and made.
So keep in mind, man is inherently evil, sinful and depraved. God created man in his image, but sinful and basically horrible. But according to the scriptures, He saved us!..Wait not all of us, just some he chose.

-Limited Atonement ? "Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, “for whose sins did Christ atone?” The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church – the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name “Christian”.
source: Calvinism | Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Limited atonement follows from unconditional election that Christ sacrifice was only for the elect, and by elect, only the people who God fore-chose before the beginning of the world to save. The idea is designed to resolve what Calvinist’s believe to be a tension in the scriptures where God, the author of evil, came to save man, but not all men just the one’s he chose. Conversely this means that he also created and chose the rest, or non-elect to go to hell.
Again the implications are damning, further non-scriptural. It removes the ability for man to reconcile himself to God through repentance and freewill, but only those whom he chose can obtain repentance and be saved.

So at least in theory, if you are not part of this lucky group, there is nothing you can do about it. If you were not chosen then you can repent, plead, act right, praise God, spread the gospel, feed the poor, care for the sick, etc. and you are still screwed. Now the Calvinist will claim that if you are doing these things, it’s a sign that you are part of the elect. HOWEVER, certain groups are excluded namely Catholics. Because of the belief that the Catholic Church is the creation of the devil, no Catholic is elected to be saved. Now the Cavinist will claim that they cannot know who has been chosen and who has not been chosen, but they know damn sure that Catholicism is from the devil, so it’s real unlikely.

Further this excludes any chance for non-Christians to be saved. They have been damned by default.

This is disgustingly non-scriptural, it’s a total perversion of scripture actually. The idea that you can repent and be Baptist, that you can believe in Christ follow the word of God and be saved is totally reversed. In other words, you will only do these things if you are elect, if you were chosen to do them. You cannot choose to do them and be saved.

Scriptural refutations include but are not limited to:

"But he was pierced for our transgressions;
	he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
	and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
	we have turned?every one?to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
	the iniquity of us all.

(Isaiah 53:5-6 ESV)"

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
(Matthew 11:28-29 ESV)”

“that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
(2 Corinthians 5:19 ESV)”

142

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[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]

My colorful linguistics aside, and just like anything else, there are many shades of ‘Calvinist’, the facts are dead on.
And you don’t see the disputation of them, but an attempt to justify them.

If we were dealing with a less extreme element I could see you admonition and looking for the sunny side, but we are dealing with the more extreme. So I am addressing the extreme element.

If you feel the facts are incorrect, then address and correct them.

And were are you coming to the many false attacks against Catholicism, you know not to be true? Where is the portrayal that those criticisms are out of line, out of step and grossly misleading of church stances and church doctrine?

143

Praise the name of our God for the few faithful Christian “artists” left out there. Time for a break. If you people only knew how true this song is in the crushing fiery trials my family’s life now is, and probably will be for the rest of it. He IS my strength and my shield. My rock and my redeemer.

I HAVE been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. My merciful master, how I thank you for even the present passing glimpse of your glory as I await the day when I shall be changed, in a moment in the twinkling of an eye. When this corruption shall put on the incorruptible forevermore and I shall be like you and shall no longer have to see you as through a glass darkly, but face to face.

A man for whom 10,000 lakes of fire could never be sufficient punishment and yet you call me “brother”, “bride” and “son”. I will never again forget your faithfulness to me.

144

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[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…

  1. Paul’s account of Jesus’ resurrection appearances contradicts the “account” in the four “actual gospels.”
  2. The four gospels present a unified and coherent account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
  3. “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.
  4. 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.

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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]
For someone who supposedly pays so much attention to detail, you sure have a hard time determining whether someone is making an argument or asking a question. All of this has nothing to do with my question, anyway. I am applying no pre-conceived notions to the question, simply asking:

Paul wrote one thing, the other Gospel writers wrote something else. Is it true then, that Galatians 1:8 instructs Paul’s followers to reject the other Gospels?

145

Pat is here advancing a noxious admixture of SOME truth of what Calvinism is and very much caricatured error. I spent over a year attempting to explain this to him (and others). He can claim victory for now as far as I’m concerned. I do not have time to do it all over again here. Again, not to insult or disrespect Pat, but the real discussion is with his most royal majestic highness KingKai. A young man from whom I have learned quite a bit and whose exegetical skills at the technical level dwarf my own. I wouldn’t deny that anyway, but it would be pointless to try.

That said, we DO have a fundamental difference in foundational method that leads us to different conclusions theologically. We haven’t even been able to discuss this privately yet. Both of us being so busy. These topics are so unbelievably time consuming. Good grief. I’m sitting here thinking about how this would go if we were sitting in a room together to say nothing of having to type it all out.

146

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[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…

  1. Paul’s account of Jesus’ resurrection appearances contradicts the “account” in the four “actual gospels.”
  2. The four gospels present a unified and coherent account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
  3. “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.
  4. 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.

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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]
For someone who supposedly pays so much attention to detail, you sure have a hard time determining whether someone is making an argument or asking a question. All of this has nothing to do with my question, anyway. I am applying no pre-conceived notions to the question, simply asking:

Paul wrote one thing, the other Gospel writers wrote something else. Is it true then, that Galatians 1:8 instructs Paul’s followers to reject the other Gospels?[/quote]

Nice try, JP, but the following, which you wrote, IS an argument…

You are making certain truth claims, even if you leave your ultimate conclusion open for scrutiny by phrasing it as a question. I demonstrated clearly that everything you take for granted in the paragraph above (that Paul’s account disagrees with the accounts in the gospels, that gospel means the same thing in Paul as it does when applied to the four canonical texts, that the gospels present a unified, comprehensive account, and that if Paul’s account did disagree with the gospels, PAUL’S account would be the incorrect one) is either wrong or questionable.

You completely ignored my arguments (AS USUAL) and simply restated your question above, despite the fact that your question has no leg to stand on; it could only be answered directly in a world in which your misreading of Paul’s account and the gospel accounts were accurate. I have shown that your misreading is INACCURATE - Paul’s version does not contradict the gospels; Paul means something different by Gospel then what the later church meant by calling the first four texts of the New Testament “gospels;” the gospels do not present a single unified, comprehensive account against which we can measure Paul’s account; and there is no historical reason, even if such a discrepancy were found, why we should favor the Gospels’ “account” were found.

Please remember that none of us buy your reinterpretation of Christian history and denigration of Paul, so when you make comments like, “Paul gets it wrong,” we’re not sharing your presupposition that we should favor the gospels over Paul’s writings, as if the gospels were written first.

147

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[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]

My colorful linguistics aside, and just like anything else, there are many shades of ‘Calvinist’, the facts are dead on.
And you don’t see the disputation of them, but an attempt to justify them.

If we were dealing with a less extreme element I could see you admonition and looking for the sunny side, but we are dealing with the more extreme. So I am addressing the extreme element.

If you feel the facts are incorrect, then address and correct them.

And were are you coming to the many false attacks against Catholicism, you know not to be true? Where is the portrayal that those criticisms are out of line, out of step and grossly misleading of church stances and church doctrine?[/quote]

Pat, I honestly haven’t been paying a ton of attention to this thread, so I might have missed it, but the only person I saw actively attacking Catholicism was JP, and I am working on a response to his ridiculous “Babylonian mythology” argument, but all the rest of his arguments have been dealt with by you and BC. I didn’t really see anyone else attacking Catholicism. And JP’s arguments are, as always, weak.

148

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Paul wrote one thing, the other Gospel writers wrote something else. Is it true then, that Galatians 1:8 instructs Paul’s followers to reject the other Gospels?[/quote]

This is patently false. Paul did not write ‘something else’, he was preaching the Gospel of Jesus, the same Gospels the other apostles were preaching which are the same gospels as they appear in the NT.

Something else was going on in those days. There were a lot of “Gospels” going around. A lot of bad, or false info, people with a self-serving agenda falsifying gospels in order to mislead early Christians. That is what Paul was testifying against.

I swear, whatever your are reading, this JWO site is like the National Enquirer of Christianity. False claim after false claim…

Try something new, just to shake things up, look for unbiased, historic sources for your facts and base your accusations and facts on real, verifiable actual facts that events that actually occurred. You’re really starting to develop a credibility issue.

You just come off as an angry bigot right now… At least be an angry bigot with real facts.

149

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Paul wrote one thing, the other Gospel writers wrote something else. Is it true then, that Galatians 1:8 instructs Paul’s followers to reject the other Gospels?[/quote]

This is patently false. Paul did not write ‘something else’, he was preaching the Gospel of Jesus, the same Gospels the other apostles were preaching which are the same gospels as they appear in the NT.

Something else was going on in those days. There were a lot of “Gospels” going around. A lot of bad, or false info, people with a self-serving agenda falsifying gospels in order to mislead early Christians. That is what Paul was testifying against.

I swear, whatever your are reading, this JWO site is like the National Enquirer of Christianity. False claim after false claim…

Try something new, just to shake things up, look for unbiased, historic sources for your facts and base your accusations and facts on real, verifiable actual facts that events that actually occurred. You’re really starting to develop a credibility issue.

You just come off as an angry bigot right now… At least be an angry bigot with real facts.[/quote]

Lol Watch out - he’ll probably tell you that he “isn’t angry,” that he is calmly telling you “the Truth” that you just refuse to see with your own eyes. More even than the JWO site, I think his strange interpretations derive from the extremely false, “common-sense” notion that, if something is true, you should be able to communicate it in a few words. Granted, there is literally no logical ground supporting that notion, but given the fact that JP consistently attacks me for “putting up walls of text” and shows that he (1) either didn’t read my posts at all, or (2) has trouble following an argument longer than two sentences, I think it likely governs all his thought.

150

Why would you think I’m angry?

I’m just asking a question. One that, it seems, nobody is willing to give a direct answer to. So let me rephrase;

Does Paul tell his church to reject any Gospel other than the one he preached, and even to curse the one who espouses said Gospel?

151

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Why would you think I’m angry?

I’m just asking a question. One that, it seems, nobody is willing to give a direct answer to. So let me rephrase;

Does Paul tell his church to reject any Gospel other than the one he preached, and even to curse the one who espouses said Gospel?[/quote]

No.

152

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Why would you think I’m angry?

I’m just asking a question. One that, it seems, nobody is willing to give a direct answer to. So let me rephrase;

Does Paul tell his church to reject any Gospel other than the one he preached, and even to curse the one who espouses said Gospel?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

Actually, Paul DID say that. However, the problem JP has is that he assumes Paul taught a different gospel than the one Christ taught, which he did not.

153

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Why would you think I’m angry?

I’m just asking a question. One that, it seems, nobody is willing to give a direct answer to. So let me rephrase;

Does Paul tell his church to reject any Gospel other than the one he preached, and even to curse the one who espouses said Gospel?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

Actually, Paul DID say that. However, the problem JP has is that he assumes Paul taught a different gospel than the one Christ taught, which he did not.[/quote]And little brother Forbes knocks it down. Yes, Paul was taught DIRECTLY by the risen ascended Christ Himself and even Peter recognized the depth of the revelation that had been given him. Peter called Paul’s writings scripture. Paul was eminently qualified and authorized to both declare what the gospel is AND to anathematize those who taught ANYthing or ANYone else else AS the gospel. Or corrupted versions of either, which is what he actually specifies there. This is one of those, “those who call on His name are saved and how can they call on He of whom they have not heard” statements. So clear that one has to simply force their own meaning to avoid it.

154

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Why would you think I’m angry?

I’m just asking a question. One that, it seems, nobody is willing to give a direct answer to. So let me rephrase;

Does Paul tell his church to reject any Gospel other than the one he preached, and even to curse the one who espouses said Gospel?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

Actually, Paul DID say that. However, the problem JP has is that he assumes Paul taught a different gospel than the one Christ taught, which he did not.[/quote]

Not exactly. Go look at the verse and you will see what I mean.

155

[quote] written by Paul:
2 Cor 8:21 - for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of men.

Rom 12:17 - Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.

Rom 14:18 - he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men

1 Cor 10:33 - just as I try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved.[/quote]

All this sounds good at first. Until you look back and see what Christ said about the matter:

[quote]Spoken by Christ:

Luke 16:15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.” [/quote]

Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?

156

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?[/quote]Yes.

157

Diving further in to the rabbit hole with Calvinism, we are working through it’s 5 pillars and as we go down it tends to get more bizarre. The next letter in the TULIP is ‘I’ or ‘Irresistible Grace’.

Now all of this follows from the theme of predestination and each letter feeds into the next. I will say Calvin was no dummy in his construction of the TULIP, not matter he was still wrong and heretical. The overriding theme is that God made man evil, God made evil and created man to damn them save for the few he chose to save. For the few he did all of salvation history for, for the rest of us, we’re just disgusting in His eyes and he hates us. Such is the fatalism of Calvinism. On to ‘Irresistible Grace’

-Irresistible Grace ? “The result of God’s Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them and the very Spirit of God leads God’s beloved to repentance What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit.”

In English, this means that means that if God chose you, you cannot resist his call. This makes sense in a world without freewill in reason, but if you insert freewill and reason, the whole thing falls apart. There is a more bizarre side component, if you are part of elect, there is a certain remnant that are not only chosen, but will be saved no matter what?Meaning technically, you could do anything, and be anything, but you are still saved. Now of course this is a more theoretical approach, the Calvinist will claim that if you are chosen, then you will follow the script of a chosen one and act right. But the doctrine, as laid out, technically gives you license to do anything and you will be saved. Likewise, you can live the Holiest life possible, and you will still be damned.
Keep in mind, we cannot apply logic or the thing falls apart, you are to apply a blind faith where all these tensions are resolved simply by God’s omnipotence and you are not to question?.
Naturally, if somebody tells me to believe something and not dare question it, it makes me very suspicious of the intent. Second, it’s not scriptural. We are to test things to determine whether they are of God, or something else.

Scriptural refutations of Irresistible Grace, these are just a sampling of many, of course:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
(Matthew 23:37 ESV)”

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
(John 5:39-40 ESV)”

“Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
(Proverbs 1:24-25 ESV)”

“And go to the exiles, to your people, and speak to them and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,’ whether they hear or refuse to hear.”
(Ezekiel 3:11 ESV)"

158

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Are you sure Paul taught the same Gospel?[/quote]Yes.
[/quote]

[quote] Paul wrote:

Rom 9:15-16 - For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not upon man’s will or exertions, but upon God’s mercy. [/quote]

[quote] Christ spoke:

Matt 5:7 - Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
[/quote]

I don’t see how you can say that these two contradictory statements are of the same Gospel.

If you are merciful to others (an exertion on your part), you will be given mercy by our Father. That is Truth as spoken by Christ.

Paul would have you believe that a person who has been cruel and unmerciful their entire lives may be granted mercy, and a person who has obeyed the Commands all their lives may not be. That it is just an arbitrary decision.

159

Folks, what Pat is here engaging in what is called “proof texting”. That is, the practice of pulling a few verses, or even more than a few and isolating them from the body of scriptural truth and advancing them as if they establish doctrine. Discussions like this are not possible on the basis of proof texting. I can instantly pull out some passages that appear to say the exact opposite of the ones Pat is quoting.

Here is an example from John 6: [quote]37-All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38-For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39-And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40-For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." <<<>>> 43-Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 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.[/quote] Or the book of the acts of the apostles 13:48: [quote]And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.[/quote]now isn’t that helpful? There’s dozens more, but a proof text war establishes nothing. REAL study and exposition is required when dealing with ancient texts and men spend years doing it. Methodological presuppositions also reign supreme. Proof texting is NOT worthless in every instance, but when dealing with entire soteriological systems it most assuredly IS.

If somebody is actually interested in such an exposition this http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/The%20Reformed%20Doctrine%20of%20Predestination.pdf book will provide it. Agree or not this man named Loraine does a bang up job of laying out an actual systematic reason for believing in “Calvinistic” or “reformed” (reformation) theology. It should also be noted that this theology predated John Calvin by dozens of centuries and the five points were not the five points until long after he had died. Martin Luther published large parts of what Calvin did before Calvin too.

Calvin gets his name pinned to the system because he did the most through and systematic job to that point though Augustine didn’t miss much either going waaaay back to the 4th and 5th centuries. Calvin greatly revered Augustine, often referrnig to him respectfully simply as “the theologian”.
Proof texting is a deadly practice and can be has been used to make the scriptures say literally anything.

160

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I don’t see how you can say that these two contradictory statements are of the same Gospel. >>>[/quote]They are not contradictory. Try to remember (or first understand) that Jesus entire earthly ministry took place under the OLD covenant. Although new covenant salvation has always been the only kind there is. You’ll need to do some real study for this. When you surrender your heart AND your mind you will understand.[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< If you are merciful to others (an exertion on your part), you will be given mercy by our Father. That is Truth as spoken by Christ. >>>[/quote] And if that’s actually all it took? The way you’re reading it? His standing there having been incarnated a human man in anticipation of a tortuous death and glorious resurrection would have been both unnecessary and idiotic to boot. Again, let go of that mind and let Him speak to you through his servants the apostles.

For the record, I really believe that day is comin somewhere down the line and you will NEVER hear me say “I told you so”. I’m just gonna rejoice with you. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Paul would have you believe that a person who has been cruel and unmerciful their entire lives may be granted mercy, and a person who has obeyed the Commands all their lives may not be. That it is just an arbitrary decision.[/quote]No, that is the gospel. Once you actually understand it. The rich young ruler said he obeyed all the commandments from his youth. Jesus didn’t question him on that at all.

He told him to sell all his stuff and follow Him. That’s not in the law anywhere, but Jesus was making a point. The heart is what matters. Not outward actions alone. Jesus also said that many will come to him in the day of judgement having done all kinds of charitable AND supernatural stuff in His very name and he will tell them I NEVER knew you. Then we have the man crucified next to Him who just came to the knowledge of the truth WHILE hanging on that cross.

A sinful criminal whose whole life to that point was anything but “merciful” and JESUS, the guy whose words you say you like, told him that he would be with Him that day in paradise. You’re gonna get this. I refuse to die until you do. =]