Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Everyday people want things and are told to stop following those feelings. For example in court a man loves his wife so much he can’t stop following f her around or texting her. The court says do it again and you will breach a restraining order. The man keeps doing until he gets out into prison several times. Or he sees her with someone else. I am not saying it is easy to stop being attracted to someone but the fact is people do stop loving others for all sorts of reasons.
Why would I want to stop loving my parents? God is not asking us to do that. He values family. That is the point of my post.
You don’t really know anything about my background and given some on this site just love to twist everything people raise personally I won’t. But the fact is there are lots of minorities that exist now. And none of them want to be considered abnormal. Think racists. Think trans. Think pedos. Think JWs. Think fundamentalist christians. Yet just because they don’t want to think they are abnormal does not mean they are normal. They might be but thinking it does not make it so. I might find myself attracted to Mariah Carey. You might say ok you can’t help it. So does that mean I should accept that unless I can make her like me then my life is empty and meaningless? Or do I have a choice? Does the other person have to like me back? The fact is we choose who we are attracted to and we choose how we are going to deal with that attraction. Every day people who love each other choose to end that relationship for all sorts of reasons. Over 50 % of marriage end in divorce. This is people choosing who they are attracted to or not anymore. It is an absurdly to think otherwise.
God’s love is reflected in his utmost value of marriage and family. You have not commented on that. Because god values this so highly - it is why the sanction for breaching it is so heavy. And to prove this is the case - understand that the death penalty is not just for homosexuality but for every sexual offence outside of the marriage covenant. Or other offences that might cause a breach in that covenant such as murder or assault or the death of a baby. If God only sentenced gays and nobody else to death then perhaps your fantasy of God being a hater of gays might have merit. But the facts demonstrate otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
n Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's firstborn son.[2] Solomon is also called "son of God".[3][4] Angels, just and pious men,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Everyone in Israel is God’s child. So. This actually makes your notion even less possible. It reduces any pointing to kings per se as overkill. Firstborn means preeminent in the Jewish language. David is called firstborn yet he was not firstborn. You are unable to logically connect all kings of Israel as sons of God unless you generalise to all people of Israel. And when you generalise you lose. Why would Matthew or any of the gospel writers need to highlight Jesus was just another Israelite amongst the others? There is an obvious reason why they called him the Son of God. It was to perfectly contrast Jesus’ favourite term Son of Man. One identifies him as man and one as God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The more you value something the more severe the sanction will be on those who attempt to change it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
> @TradesecretThe death penalty does not demonstrate hate towards homosexuals- it demonstrates the sanctity and the high value God has on family and marriage.Sending someone into Hell i.e making them burn eternally in fire because of a desire which they cannot control is… Gods love?
No offence meant but that is simply a nonsense argument. If anyone knew that such was a likely outcome then they would stop doing it. I reject the idea that people have no control over their thoughts and attractions. I choose whom I am attracted to and to whom I am not attracted to. And with regard to Gods love - absolutely. God loves the family and marriage so much that any distortion of it, and move to change it, any manner to diminish it will bring about the most severest punishments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Saying homosexuality is an abomination and deserves the death penalty is not the same as saying you hate gays. When my son looks at porn it is a grievous thing to me and deserves punishment. Yet it does mean I hate him. To let him continue without telling him it is wrong would suggest I don’t care for him. By informing him I actually reveal my care and concern and I fact that I do love him. I love him enough to tell him.Timid makes a good point. To declare homosexuality as a sin is already an issue and to say that the death penalty is a justified response is outrageous. (trade, would you like to debate this topic? THBT: Homosexuality should be punishable by death).
Bones, firstly I am simply making the point that because God considers homosexuality evil does not mean he hates homosexuals. I hate Catholicism but I don’t hate Catholics. To correct a catholic is not to hate them. The death penalty does not demonstrate hate towards homosexuals- it demonstrates the sanctity and the high value God has on family and marriage. And on humanity as made in the image of God, male and female. If he did not have a high value of this then then the penalty for homosexuality would reflect that low value.
As for debating you on the death penalty my answer is no. Thanks for the invite but I don’t actually agree with the death penalty at this time. For any matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I would accept that they are a Christian cult. Just not Christian. Obviously they are not Muslim or pagan. They certainly identify closer to Christianity than to other religions.
Worship is vague at the best of times. People lovingly attending a rock concert or a football game could vaguely be said to worshiping. Yet christians and JWs would suggest that worship is slightly more nuanced than that. It is more than simply being in awe of something. For me worship is not just a lifestyle. It is prayer to a deity. It is total submission. It is not half hearted. It is the full Monty for want of a better phrase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I agree with you Poly. Throwing stones is an obvious way of conceding you actually have a point or an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I raised it after you brought it up earlier. Still you never proved it before and you still have not proved it.
Make your posts shorter if you want me to respond. And keep your commentary about me to zero. I don’t have an agenda. The great commission is Christ’s mission for his church. It is not a personal agenda. Stop talking nonsense about me personally. The same applies to me just passing stuff on. Any student knows in every field of study that there are things you pass on and there are things you bring to the table. My acknowledgment of that should not the butt if your jokes unless you are prepared to say science is incorrect. All scientists pass stuff on which they have learnt and some make contributions as well. If you want to discuss the topic I am happy to but stop with the personal attacks.
David and Solomon both were called sons of God. I agreed with that previously. Yet this does not extrapolate over to all kings of Israel in general. That point you never proved.
Calling Israel his son does not necessitate that every Israelite is a son of god any more than the notion that God as the father of humanity means all people are children of God. Moreover The gospel writers usage of the term son of God obviously meant more than simply a child of Israel or child of humanity.
You suggest it only means king of Israel and not more than that. That is the rub. Not only have you not proved this but you have not proved it only means that. In other words you have nothing. Just speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
JWs are considered a cult and stand outside of traditional Christianity. If JWs do worship Jesus then they worship two gods. In my discussions with them they tend to deny they worship Jesus. In fact they even take issue with me if I say Jesus was worshiped. For example when Thomas fell on his knees declaring Jesus to be God and worshiping him. I don’t see how special pleading is relevant. If they don’t say they don’t worship Jesus then surely that speaks for itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Saying homosexuality is an abomination and deserves the death penalty is not the same as saying you hate gays. When my son looks at porn it is a grievous thing to me and deserves punishment. Yet it does mean I hate him. To let him continue without telling him it is wrong would suggest I don’t care for him. By informing him I actually reveal my care and concern and I fact that I do love him. I love him enough to tell him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
A persons religion might have many contributing factors. What is true is that they are not born into a vacuum. Yet at the end of a day what determines whether someone is religious or not? Is it their own individual self or the environment around them or is it something else? In the West we tend to suggest it is an individual thing. In other places there are other determinants- including country of origin, gender, wealth, etc.
I think making a blanket statement about someone’s religiosity or not is erroneous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
True they would be rejected by the mainline and traditional church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Ordinarily that makes sense. But if I were to ask an alcoholic if they were an alcoholic they would deny it. And if I asked a JW if they were a heretic they would deny it too. And obviously if I asked them if they were a Christian organisation - or what a Christian was - they would simply give me their own definition. If people don’t believe that Jesus is LORD - where the meaning is clearly referring to the One True God then they are not in the biblical view a Christian. Just because I choose to identify as one does not make me one. God elects his people and separates them to himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes it is one of the creeds that the church has universally accepted. Other cults have rejected it. But the church has stood firm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And you never proved it. Sons of God for all Israel kings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
By What standards do they worship Jesus? It was my understanding that they believe you can only worship the one true God. Are you saying that they are polygamous? Would they consider this to be true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are a sad man and your fantasies will only end up with grief.
Jesus is the king of the universe and does not deserve such ridicule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Of course it doesn’t prove anything. Even if the centurion boy was a particular kind of relationship. That does not mean Jesus condoned it. He healed these people without discrimination. And the centurion was a God fearing man - not just roman god but Jewish God. Jesus was human and as such was a sexual being. How did he express this? Not outside of marriage. And for Jesus it could not even be fantasy. According to Jesus ‘ definition of sin - pornography would be sin and akin to adultery. And since Jesus was perfect and without sin then it goes without saying he was neither gay nor having a relationship with an unmarried or married female. And he was not married. It is true that the culture then did not understand sexual orientation. I think that is good as I think that sexual orientation is a myth. It was not a thing then. I also don’t think Jesus discriminated against gay people if they were publicly known at the time. Jesus came to deal with sin. The link and the evidence is so thin it has no weight. Nevertheless thanks for the link.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes retreating is a good word. But I’m back for a while at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Obviously it depends on the single parent. But assuming that they are a half decent person then at least they are biologically related. Gay parents can only have one biologically related person to the child. Again biology is not a guarantee of being a good or decent parent. Yet is still preferable to inflicting the child with either two dads or two mums. A gay couple commences with a unique worldview. This worldview should be restricted from children until the child is an adult.
I accept that there are many non gay Familes that are absolutely abusive and hateful and even evil. Many that do not demonstrate love in appropriate ways. These people should ideally not be parents either. And I also accept that many gay people would probably make great parents. Yet sadly they also have a worldview which is selfish. And this is inescapable. This is why I think that ordinarily a single person would be preferable to a gay couple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
it is good to see you are holding up the fort. Stephen has got no clue to anything you put up. It must really frustrate him that you have so much knowledge that he cannot possibly counter.
Keep up the good work.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
It looks like everyone gives you a hard time. Religious people and atheists all speak their mind. If you don’t like it do something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So explain where and how Jesus hid his sexuality? Oh that’s right you can’t. LOL. At least come up with original stories.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
The easy thing would be not to engage with religious people. Leave if you don’t like the talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
He was not gay or sexually active in any way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It appears to me that you know little about how lecturers tutor and teach at college. No professor in any field or sphere pretends or purports to be an expert in every area of a discipline.
In seminary, there are always various disciplines, OT, NT, church history, languages, pastoral care, preaching, hermeneutics, systematic theology, Pauline epistles, gospels, poetry, wisdom, apocalyptic, evangelism, Confession, Reformation and Renaissance church history, world history, religions, etc etc.
NOONE is an expert on all of it. And no pretends to be. Well except for you.
And this of course is how it is in any other discipline - be it science, medicine, law, economics, business. No one pretends or purports to be an expert on every subject.
I don't.
Nor do I have a desire to pretend to be - and to answer every question you put to me. There are lots of people on this site - who are able to attempt to answer it for you.
Again, glad to have you back. Now stop with the moaning and get with the program.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen thanks for that amazing postIt is isn't it! We have a qualified man of god, a Pastor no less, (just like you!) reminding us off the precedent set by Jesus himself. #1Well now Reverend, you could try and explain to us why these sad grieving souls prayers weren't answered instead of sarcasm?Take the case of Pastor Bill and his attempt to raise the child from the dead through faith and prayer. Why wasn't his and the prayers of all of his congregation able to raise the child back to life? Especially in the light of Jesus clearly tells us :"Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it".John14:13-14And the bible clearly informs its adherents to continue praying! And to “never give up”. Luke 18.Why would it tell us that if prayer is as pointless as it has been shown to be in all of those three sad cases above.#1I found it interesting too that the only thing that this Pastor and his church managed to "raise" was the $63,000 that came on the backs of these unfortunate dead children and their grieving parents. Is it only a coincidence that this seems to underscore what I wrote in relation to this practice of priests and pastors on your own thread here>> #42
Well Stevie boy , that is the question isn't? If they were in my congregation this would never have happened. Why not you ask. And that of course is a great question.
Firstly, we teach our congregation to read the Bible in context and not to simply take verses out of context. Secondly we teach our congregation to have respect for God - he is not someone who you can simply put on a dancing string. Thirdly, we teach our congregation that God answers our prayers with a yes or a no or a maybe. Sometimes God says yes and sometimes he says no. We cannot demand God do anything - why not? Because he is God - not us.
Fourthly, I would never raise a go fund me page for any of my congregation - what a nonsensical thing to do.
If our congregations' members are sick - we tell them to go the doctor. The fact is - we have 4 medical doctors in our congregation and several para medics. We take medical issues very seriously. Yes, we pray - but this never means we don't let them go to doctors - or have medical advice. or medical attention.
In any event - we don't believe John 14 teaches what you are suggesting. There are numerous other ways to understand it - and the fact that some don't is hardly an argument against the Scriptures - it really a message for more understanding.
It is of course a tragedy the story you have provided. And yet we see stories like that every day in life - not simply in churches unfortunately but in civil life - in atheistic homes where people refuse to go to the doctor out of pride or ignorance. Education is a good goal - unfortunately not all families are educated well - especially in public schools. At least churches provide a network where people can see how children are doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Wow! Stephen thanks for that amazing post. I guess I have got it all wrong and the bible is a crock of garbage and God is a myth. Ok. You are so persuasive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I dunno - GOD does whatever he pleases. It is not for me to determine that. Yet I am sure you can find some verses to answer your question so that you can then turn around and declare that the pastor reverend lawyer - whatever he is - is ignorant about it. I have no idea why you find it necessary to do this.
Stephen, this is not a pissing contest.
It was NOT me who got you banned. Ask the moderator if you don't believe me. In other words, I never made a complaint. In fact I can honestly indicate that I have ONLY once made a complaint while I have been on this site. ONCE. And only after I had repeatedly asked for the other person to stop. And it was not for you.
I was and remain glad that you are back. Yet, this does not mean I enjoy your ad hominin attacks. Just stick to the facts and we will get along fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Science is the study of nature. The power of science can be just as (if not more) awesome, powerful and destructive as nature. Read anything by Oppenheimer.
I have but not for a while.
The force and power of natural disasters can no longer be used as a proof of god any more. Thankfully, those days are gone now. It must choke the church leaders that these common natural disasters cannot be used as warnings, threats and - I told you so’s – by the Pastors and the Priests to further their own ideologies or religion sand bank balance. And neither can disaster be used to con widows out of their houses with promises of tickets to heaven and an everlasting life.Indeed it was much more simpler then in past times of ignorance and fear,when priests faced less doubt and opposition to totally control a persons daily life.
Yes, people should not use disasters as a proof of god. Not that I know any Christians who take that view. The only time I really hear about the so called god of the gaps is when Dawkins attempts to strawman Christians. Thankfully, most Christians recognize the strawman tactics that Dawkins uses most of the time and ignore him.
Thankfully Science has has shown us that these devastating occurrences are uncontrollable natural disasters that couldn’t be managed and coped with anywhere near as they can be today.
Science has certainly come a long way - and this is to be commended. Yet, many disasters still occur even today that are well outside of human ability to control. Anyone visiting the recent bushfires in Australia would know the helplessness of humans and their most advanced scientists in dealing with these disasters. Most of what the scientists were able to do - was a response action. After the fact. Interestingly enough the Royal Commission in Australia actually indicated part of the problem in the first place was the bad science of the environmentalists getting into local councils.
An earthquake would happen and the people would shake with fear. Many would run for their lives if they were able to. Thousands would be crushed to death or buried alive and finally suffocate to death. The thousands of dead bodies would begin to rot causing plagues and rampant infestation followed by even more diseases which in turn would kill thousand more. This is not counting those that may survive but with life time crippling injuries and deformities causing them to be outcasts. And the Pastors and the Priests would blame the population for committing one sin or another against god and would be told they would have to pay more for said sin with more lambs and doves bought from the temple traders at extortionate prices and handover any other hard earned worldly goods that they may have accumulated through their sheer backbreaking hard work done by the sweat of their brows.
It would be great if you would provide your sources and evidence for saying pastors and priests would blame the population for committing sins against the Gods. I suspect it is simply rhetoric used to try and deceive those reading because it sounds like something you have heard before.
There wouldn't be any rescue crews with heavy machinery, no ambulances or doctors to treat the injured or nurses on hand to receive the injured into high tech emergency units and no after care that science has provided for those of us lucky enough to be alive today and they would not have had the early warning systems in place either that we have today.
Christians have always been at the forefront of science. Most of the spheres of science we have today exist because Christian Scientists believed in cause and effect and a world that was predictable. It is quite arguable that without Christianity, the world would still be living in a pre- modern world.
Indeed those Pastors and Priest of old were raking it in. The temple mount and the temple compound was a hive of commerce, with money changers making a killing on the exchange rate as pilgrims could only buy with money acceptable to the temple authorities and traders taking advantage of a bad situation (and good one’s) by selling only“perfect doves” and other live stock to the gullible for offerings to god.
It seems like are now on a tangent. I suppose your time away has rekindled your desire to say much even if "you don't say much". Good go for it Stephen. Anything to help you sleep better at night.
There was also the “ransom” straight to the temple priests of the sanctuary, as god told Moses “all of them shall give a ransom for their lives to the Lord so that no plague may come upon them” Exodus30:11-16.Is it any wonder those puppet priests didn’t want to give over this lucrative business to Jesus the interloper.“The money from the guilt offerings and sin offerings was not brought into the temple of the lord; it belonged to the priests”. 2Kings 12:16Nope,no doves and pigeons for the Pastors and the Priests, they only took cool cold cash, thank you very much.
Yes, it is true that the love of money blinds people from doing what is right. All people are sinners - not just those who get drunk and commit adultery. Even the priests would be found to doing things for themselves. Was it all of them? Of course not. Yet, there was enough for it to recognized.
Today thanks to our brilliant scientist we can look on in awesome wonder at the power of nature but without fear and guilt that we mere humans had caused god to be angry with us and that we had caused all those deaths and all of that destruction.How the Pastors and the Priests must yearn for the good old days.
I am not sure which pastors and priests you refer to. I don't know any who yearn for the good old days, whatever and whenever they were. Christians love science. Science is something that God gave to humanity by way of his human image to understand the world we live in. The god of the gaps theory you keep referring to is - one that ONLY non-Christians use - and they are typically atheists. IT is a strawman argument. For the Christian God explains both the known and the unknown. GOD is a god of Order, reason, consistency, and predictability. God often uses cause and effect in his interplay with this world. How else would it be that Christians were at the forefront of learning, philosophy, language, science, theology, education, and legalities throughout their time in history?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
HI Stephen,
Let me refer back to my opening post. Please read it again. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546/post-links/239221.
Then let me refer you to my first response to Brother. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546/post-links/239509. You will see he attempted to make a similar point to you. And where I actually thanked him. I also provided the reason for my opening post.
I also refer you to https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546/post-links/239516 where Ethang knew what I was doing and continued the theme.
Let me also refer you to https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546/post-links/239336 who responded exactly as I envisaged a reasonable person would respond. And also https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546/post-links/239342.
Again https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546/post-links/239403 this post reveals a similar sentiment. As does
So it seems apart from you and the Brother, everyone else knew that I was seeking questions in an attempt to open up the subject, not because I was ignorant of the subject.
Your views are welcome on my pages. I take the view you have a right to speak your opinions and this is ok. Yet I also have a right to disagree with you.
And I am pleased you are back. Just like I am glad the Brother showed up again. Despite your spite and his spite, I will respond when I think it is appropriate and not because either you or he wants to goad me into a discussion.
Welcome to the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hi Stephen glad to see you back and back to your typically friendly demeanor.
I am afraid that you have got this just about backwards. I am not asking these questions because I do not know - but rather to ask others to engage with the thoughts in their lives. It is an exercise in getting people to ask questions.
But hey, I wait for your quick and witty retort which will simply say this is a lie.
Some things never change - you my friend are one those things.
Nevertheless, it is good to see you are back.
Created:
-->
@TheMelioist
Hi and thanks for the youtube clip.
Unfortunately, it does not assist me in my thinking of the age of the earth.
I think every one of his suggested problems for YEC, were known to me and does not provide new information for me to change my view.
I don't take a literal position of Genesis and never have. I do support a natural reading of it. I do not think God created man immortal and have argued this on this site.
I think Jeremiah picking up on Creation language is normal. It is a picture of de- creation.
I found most of it - almost strawman like. When people talk of literal, mostly they are talking more against the notion that a word can mean anything you want too. Most people reading the bible would accept that words can be used metaphorically. But metaphorically and symbolically are normal uses of language. Yet, interpretation is not up for grabs- it must be sola scriptura. Of course our Orthodox Church friends might not agree.
Interestingly, the author of the video does not pick up on the vav consecutive used in Hebrew language. It is a language cue much like his toredeth - generations. It is a cue which enables readers to identify a particular genre. The genre it identifies is historical narrative. This is a significant problem for the author yet omitted. Naturally of course because he was picking up on problems of YEC. Yet, it is a little dishonest as well.
Thanks however - i have several John Walton books.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMelioist
Just to spice things up and give us a smile.
Well I am part of the earth. And so are you. And indeed so are the 7.6 billion people on this planet. And I reckon all of the squillions of animals and insects and probably all of the fish life and all of the bird life and all of the fish life are part of this earth. And you know what - I reckon every living thing on this planet is part of this earth and could be called earth. And that is a pretty significant part of the earth. And I reckon that it goes without saying that - every thing mentioned so far in this paragraph -is under 10 thousand years old.
This of course leaves the rest of the planet - without life. Rocks and dirt - and perhaps water and glaciers and dead things - fossils and bones etc which might a prove a bit more difficult to simply suggest so without REAL Evidence.
But if you accept that some of the earth is under 10, 000 years old - then that is a start. Personally, I am well under 10, 000 years old.
Interestingly, this actually applies to most things we see throughout the day. Most things are well under 10, 000 years old.
Yes, some dirt might be different. But lots of the top soil is younger than 10 thousand years as well . Rocks - aha - gold and silver - now that is an interesting question. Is the gold in my watch over or under 10, 000 years old? Hmmm - or does the fact that it has been shaped and reshaped change its age?
I suppose the rocks down on my farm might be much older - I suppose if they were spewed from an volcano - hmmm - are they considered as "Born" when the volcano spewed and formed the rocks individually or is it whatever it was before it melted and was reformed?
Or is the question of the age of the earth - when the moon allegedly split from it? Or perhaps it was - when it was cast from the middle of the big bang - whenever. Is the earth's age calculated from it stopped where it is or when?
Oh it is all so complicated. How to Calculate the Age of the Earth ? (geographynotes.com) Looking at this site does not give me any confidence that scientists know. Or this one. How is Earth's Age Calculated? | Live Science. Not even wikapedia is much help. Age of Earth - Wikipedia
It seems that it is pretty much guesswork. But let's try and get some sort of consensus in the billions of years. Why? Well because that is how this sort of science works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Soluminsanis
Thanks for responding to my post.
So in regards to total depravity I would take no issue with what you laid out. Calvinists usually say we're not as evil as we can possibly be. I would agree. I would also add, which many calvinists do not, that we are not as spiritually blind as we could be. But putting that aside I would argue there's not too much contention here.
Glad to see you don't have too much contention here. Interesting thought about spiritual blindness. I will need to consider that in more depth at a later time.
Unconditional Election: God chooses his people unconditionally. In other words, there is nothing about any human that warrants salvation or mercy. No condition such as wealth, intelligence, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. including creed, is necessary or required for God to choose. It is a situation whereby God saves us not because of something better than someone else but entirely because of his mercy.This is a really soft definition of unconditional election. Even the staunchest arminian would agree with this. I'm going to quote the WCF's definition of unconditional election:
I am not attempting to put a soft definition. Rather a distilled one for my children to understand. I know the WCF. I have to subscribe and affirm it it in my role. Yet we also have a declarative statement which we read the WCF in the light of which includes the following:
That the doctrine of God’s eternal decree, including the doctrine of election to eternal life, is held asdefined in the Confession of Faith, Chapter III, Section 1., where it is expressly stated that according tothis doctrine, “neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor isthe liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;” and further, that the saiddoctrine is held in connection and harmony with the truth – that God is not willing that any should perish,but that all should come to repentance, that He has provided a salvation sufficient for all, and adaptedto all, and offered to all in the Gospel, and that every hearer of the Gospel is responsible for his dealingwith the free and unrestricted offer of eternal life.
In regards to the molinist view of unconditional election, I will devote a second reply to it because it'll take up too much space in this one...
I will look forward to giving it some further thought.
therefore atonement is limited by definition.Yes but limited in what sense? In its scope or its application? The non Calvinist would say limited in application. The Calvinist would say limited in its scope.I'll phrase it this way, did Christ die for the sins of every person, or the elect only?
Yes, I understand the dilemma This is why I distinguish between assurance and sufficiency. I think the two are quite distinct and important doctrines and not necessarily well understood. The interesting thing is that evangelical arminians and calvinists would both hold that the exact number of people are saved no matter what position you hold to. The whosoever, and the elect = the exact multitude without number.
Once a person - sees Jesus for whom he is - cannot but fall in love with him and want to follow him.I wholeheartedly agree! The question though is what brings about this change in view of Christ? The Calvinist would argue the entire person's will, heart, mind, and outlook on spiritual matters were brought about in such a way that the person could not resist.
Yes the Calvinist would say "Salvation belongs to the LORD". It is God who saves us - not we ourselves".
Ironically enough, the molinist understanding of saving or effectual grace is closer to the Calvinist than arminian. I'll address that in my next post.I would affirm perseverance of the saints as well.....
looking forward to your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Soluminsanis
Do we really need to search this hard for points of disagreement? 😀I agree with most of what he said!! 😄
See I told you all true Christians are either Calvinist or closet Calvinists. Smile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Are you sure about that?Even more so after your last post.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
May I ask for you to elaborate?
Very often the five point of Calvinism - AKA (informally) TULIP.
I subscribe to the view that we need to distil the essence of each point to that which even children can understand. When we do that - the more untenable points actually make sense.
I teach my children - TULIP in the following way: I begin by pointing out that the essence of Calvinism is "Salvation Belongs to the LORD".
Total Depravity: All have sinned. Sin is not as evil as could be - but enough to distort the image of God such that a Savior is required. I use an illustration of a glass of water that is tainted by one drop of ink. The one drop of ink - totally dilutes into the glass of water but touches every droplet of water - turning the pure glass of water murky. Enough for most not to drink it. The glass does not become total ink - but it totally depraved. Enough such that a Holy God would not accept it.
Unconditional Election: God chooses his people unconditionally. In other words, there is nothing about any human that warrants salvation or mercy. No condition such as wealth, intelligence, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. including creed, is necessary or required for God to choose. It is a situation whereby God saves us not because of something better than someone else but entirely because of his mercy.
Limited Atonement: Some people go to heaven and some people go to Hell. In other words, not everyone goes to heaven; therefore atonement is limited by definition. For older persons - I also point out the difference between assurance of salvation as a doctrine verses the sufficiency of Christ's death as a doctrine. People often quibble about whether Christ's death was sufficient for all - which I think it is. Limited Atonement as a doctrine however is quite a distinct doctrine from sufficiency. Limited Atonement is simply stating - NOT ALL people go to heaven.
Irresistible Grace: Probably the most difficult of all points to get your head around. Essentially, it means that those who are the elect cannot FOREVER resist the Spirit's call to salvation and will turn to God in repentance. It falls in line with "those who are his, know the shepherds voice". I have always likened this point for my children to chocolate. Chocolate for kids is irresistible. What sensible kid is going to reject chocolate? Once a person - sees Jesus for whom he is - cannot but fall in love with him and want to follow him.
Perseverance of the Saints: Sometimes called preservation of the Saints. This is a doctrine which teaches that God will keep his children or elect in his care. It is sometimes mistaken for a "once saved always saved" position. But this is not what the doctrine teaches. It is he who endures to the end who will be saved. This is in accordance with covenantal teaching. It is a call to faithfulness. Yet it is built on the promises of God that he will never leave or forsake his people. It is akin to baptism of infants. The promise is given that those who remain faithful - he will keep. Not a promise to those who are unfaithful - but those who remain faithful - he will keep.
Reformed or Calvinistic or biblical teaching is all about God and his promises to us. This is why I call it covenantal - in essence. It is not about us - but about God. It is the only system of doctrine which truly and faithfully and adequately assists in understanding the difference in the one and the many but also in free will and determinism and that which does not put God or humanity in a bad or unfair light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This seems like a superior understanding of God.That is probably because it is also the biblical understanding of God.
Are you sure about that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Every True Christian is either expressly a Calvinist or is a closet Calvinist. They are but they just don't know it yet.My, what a claim! May I ask for you to elaborate? I certainly wouldn't consider myself a closet calvinist. Ironically enough, Luis Molina, and myself being a molinist, affirm(ed) unconditional election. However the molinist understanding of unconditional election differs from the calvinist.
Well pleased to hear you accept unconditional election. I would be interested in knowing how your view differs from the Calvinist.
Calvin of course followed the teachings of Augustine, who followed Paul, who followed Jesus, who is very similar in thinking with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David, Daniel, Moses and Samuel. Wow, it just amazed me of the historical unity between all of these people. And these are just the ones I thought of immediately. In fact as I look through the Bible I cannot find any one - well apart from the heathens and heretics who would not be consistent with Calvinist teaching.Prove me wrong.Just so I have a general idea, what type of Calvinism do you affirm? Are you an infralapsarian or supralapsarian? Are you an Amyraldianist or do you affirm limited atonement? Would you consider yourself a compatibilist or a hard determinist?Do you subscribe to the Westminister confession?
Well thank you for asking. Yes, I subscribe to the WCF. Yes, I affirm limited atonement. I am a 5 point Calvinist by conviction, not by birth. I grew up very much in the evangelical arm of arminianism. I do not believe in double predestination, not because it is not logical because it is - but because it goes further than Scripture goes. I am not an Amyraldianist; although I know some who might call themselves that - although by listening to them they really do not understand it very well.
At college I took the view of Supra in relation to the Order of Salvation. At different times I have probably been more infra, depending upon how I understood Romans 9:11.
My view in relation to free will is that we have free will. Yet we need to understand what it means and what are its limits and how it has changed in relation to the fall of humanity. Yet I also how to the decrees of God. This is what I would call the Trinitarian or Covenantal position.
Whoop! Did I just hear a challenge?I think so! This is exactly the type of fruitful discussion I was hoping for with this thread, I foresee this dialog turning into a formal debate.
Ok.
Created: