|
Post by Paul on May 23, 2011 14:20:15 GMT -5
You take descriptive texts and say you're justified because you're doing something similar. I'm trying to do things that prescriptive texts say. I don't get the impression that you are trying to.
Pharisees used the scriptures to create traditions, and then used their traditions to try and trick Jesus. They accused Jesus of breaking the law when he broke their traditions.
In summary, they used scripture to defend their actions instead of trying to base their actions on what scriptures say.
You've developed a view point I can't find the bible teaching, and are condemning at worse or insulting at best others for not having or accepting it, or am I wrong? If you just told me that you were motivated by love even in insulting me that'd be better to me than you giving me the impression you hold love in contempt
yeah, I said that. Nothing else to say there.
You give no biblical defense for what you believe, only 'logic'
I'll take the logic of the bible and other men that use the bible (like John Piper!)
Does your wise view fit in with James 3:13ff? if you think it does, then, okay, I'd appreciate if you could explain how to me
Misrepresentation. I'm quick to defend harsh words and imprecatory psalms to people who only talk about love. I'm quick to defend love to people that don't seem to care about it. I firmly believe you can have it both ways.
What's arbitrary about 1 Corinthians 13? or 1 Thessalonians 2:7-12? or 1 John
No, I don't think that at all. I never said you're going to hell. Neither death nor life can seperate from the love of Christ. Life sure includes a lot of things. If you've been saved, God will persevere with you. Kinda like he is doing with me. Our salvation is dependant on Christ, not on Paul or Azrael.
I'm sorry Calvinism made predestination a dirty word to you. It's all over the bible.
Why didn't you say any of this at first? I think that is a decent enough argument. is it a sin to not know enough biblical history? I can only learn so much at once. You could've just tried to teach me...
I'm more than fine with looking into things like that. I'm also more than fine with people believing Job existed. If that's the impression the scripture gives, what is wrong with people taking that? Would it be better to disbelieve anything inconvenient?
nuts
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 23, 2011 14:27:21 GMT -5
I'm sorry Calvinism made predestination a dirty word to you. It's all over the bible. ahahahahahahahaha ahahahaha aha aha aha *catches breath*
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 23, 2011 14:28:52 GMT -5
wait was it funny or am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 23, 2011 14:36:50 GMT -5
Do I have to pick just one?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 23, 2011 14:39:56 GMT -5
I'm not including any baggage with the word.
The bible speaks about predestination and God calling us, and God choosing, and God's elect often. I've never heard anyone disagree with this?
or is that wrong? or should this be a new thread? I can't tell what's going on anymore, oh well
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on May 23, 2011 14:41:35 GMT -5
I'm sorry Calvinism made predestination a dirty word to you. It's all over the bible. ahahahahahahahaha ahahahaha aha aha aha *catches breath* Ephesians 1:4 literally is the definition of predestination: "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. " Maybe you interpret it in a different manner, okay, but you have to at least admit various bible verses imply predestination.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 23, 2011 14:43:03 GMT -5
You're assuming the antecedent of "us" is "believers."
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on May 23, 2011 14:44:46 GMT -5
I'm assuming only believers are holy and blameless in his sight.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on May 23, 2011 14:55:44 GMT -5
And by the way, I am actually assuming "believers" is the antecedent of "us", or rather, "God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus".
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise for Spiritual Blessings in Christ. Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—"
(Ephesians 1:1-5)
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 23, 2011 19:11:59 GMT -5
Good job on my softball.
Tell me, then, how, despite the many ecumenical councils held among the churches for hundreds of years after Christ, did no major part of the Church even consider putting down a doctrine about predestination until good old Calvin (who I take issue with for reasons beside predestination doctrine)? The Orthodox church does not have any teaching on it that I am aware of.
|
|
|
Post by conner on May 23, 2011 23:41:52 GMT -5
Well
Why did it take Martin Luther to realize something was wrong with Catholicism?
|
|
|
Post by conner on May 23, 2011 23:51:16 GMT -5
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that Christ would never be as insulting as some of the posts in this thread have been
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on May 24, 2011 9:45:49 GMT -5
Well Why did it take Martin Luther to realize something was wrong with Catholicism? Because the general populace, as opposed to the time of the first few councils, was Biblically illiterate and the political system had co-opted the church rather than the church co-opting the political system. You can't argue with corruption when you don't know how to read the language that the rulebook is written in and the only people who can say that everything is fine. Modern Catholicism, (and even Orthodox, I would argue, to a lesser extent) has very little in common with the church circa 200-500 AD. If the church fathers went that long without instituting Predestination as a concept, it's bunk. And here's why. That verses everybody quotes, "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. Ephesians 1:4" Romans 8:29-30 (New American Standard Bible) "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Romans 8:29-30" There are roughly 13 footnotes between the two of them. Let me give you a history lesson, since most Calvinists seem only to be familiar with Romans and the other Pauline epistles. Paul was a Jew. Surprise. As such, he was fond of using Jewish culture to explain things such as the call of grace. Now what are the Israelites called? God's chosen people. Did God choose each and every one of them individually? No. He blessed and sanctified the nation as a body. We see Jesus refer to the Jews again and again as the people that rejected the cornerstone, the people that declined to come to the feast. Who becomes the chosen then? The people who answer the call to the feast. The people that accept are chosen. The "chosen" refers to the nationhood or body of believers. Actually, the Romans passage is literally followed by a passage about the nationhood of Israel and believers as the new Israel. That's the problem with ripping Calvinist memory verses out of context. I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that Christ would never be as insulting as some of the posts in this thread have been You are most likely insulted because you share the same views. Grow tougher skin. Once your ideas can withstand criticism I don't think you will be quite so self-conscious about them. One of the main reasons Calvinists go after people like Rob Bell is because he knows Greek and Hebrew and they don't. Also, insult is the only "offense" where the severity is determined by the "victim." I could find any number of things here, including the self-righteous condescension, insulting. I just don't get self-conscious when people question me or call me out. And "love and kindness" doesn't mean politeness. It's a value. And it's a vague one at that. I don't have very much respect for people that call in values when they need them and reshape them to support themselves. Harsh words are a part of life and are necessary to knock arrogant people out of their lofty orbits. Both Jesus (Matt 23) and John the Baptist (Matt 3:7) hurl moral insults at people. I am simply commenting on intelligence, pride, and stupidity of arguments. The problem with reading Romans and only Romans (as many Calvinists are known to do) is that you end up applying everything in a way that suits your view of the world. People have only ever quoted "peace and love" at me when they wanted me to behave as they wanted. What it actually has become is a Biblical injunction against behavior one personally disagrees with, which is kind of scary. I have yet to see the other participant in the argument acknowledge that he was being a condescending nitwit, although he did acknowledge some of my points as meritorious. I believe if I'm going to fight, I'm not wearing gloves. Moreover, if I had a disproportionately high view of myself disproportionately high view of myself I would agree that my manners are bunk. However I know I have a history of being wrong. Therefore I have very little qualms about changing the way I think to reflect what is accurate. It's that dogged resistance to fact that reveals pride and requires a battering ram. The problem with most Calvinists is that they tend to believe faith is a raft that you cling to in the ocean against waves of logic, refutation, and opposing ideas, and eventually you get hauled off to rescue when your time comes. But faith is the ocean. The raft is your culture, your identity, and your personal concept of faith. The ocean is endless, shifting, and constantly at war with you. It will pull you under, press around you, batter you, toss you, and eventually kill you. But the truth is that it is the raft you need saving from. Some people have elaborate rafts, but these titanic devices keep them from the real terrifying encounter with God: drowning. You want real faith? Abandon all of your laws and rules. Abandon your political affiliation. Abandon your denomination. Abandon your teachings.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on May 24, 2011 12:55:38 GMT -5
Paul was a Jew. Surprise. As such, he was fond of using Jewish culture to explain things such as the call of grace. Now what are the Israelites called? God's chosen people. Did God choose each and every one of them individually? No. He blessed and sanctified the nation as a body. He chose Abraham personally, the father of the Israelites. He didn't do a thing, he was a sinner like all men, nothing is mentioned of him believing or obeying or even worshiping God in any way, before Abraham receives this promise (Genesis 12:1-3): " The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.
I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you”" God's grace and blessing and calling comes first, then comes obeying in faith. My issue isn't being specially and personally elected before the foundation of the world (though I do believe such things), my issue is that God comes first, not man's decision. People are saved by God, which is clearly shown throughout the bible, not by their own decision or free will. I know this is just an example from a single man, but I see this principle of God's grace coming first throughout the bible. My issue with Arminianism/Free Will/etc. is that it places the initiative with mankind. God only created circumstances in which you can be saved. In a way Jesus died for everyone, unlike in calvinism, but in a way, he died for nobody. He only died to create the condition in which man can easily save themselves by making a choice. That is what I object to. It makes men proud; I got saved, because I believe; I made a choice etc. I I I I and where's God? If you think like that, you're blaspheming, and taking credit for yourself which belongs to God. However, it needs to be said, I am perfectly aware, that this boasting attitude is not present in everybody who is an Arminian/believes in free will/is not a calvinist/etc. You claim calvinism makes everybody arrogant, if I remember correctly you literally said that in another thread where we were discussing the TULIP. I think only a false understanding of unconditional election could make you do that. You see, if somebody you know acts like that, feels like he is better than the rest for being God's special chosen one, he needs to be remembered, it's called unconditional election. He wasn't elected - if he was elected - by his own merit, but by Gods sovereign will and grace. There's no boasting in that. In my view of the bible, Paul counters the issue of boasting in your salvation by predestination. Ephesians 2:8-9 " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." When it comes down to it, calvinism, election, the whole TULIP, though I believe it, it is not the main issue. My issue is that people don't get saved by their decision - that would be works salvation-, but by God. " If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright" - Martin Luther
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 24, 2011 14:22:25 GMT -5
There's something extremely ridiculous going on in this whole debate but I can't quite put my finger on it. Either way, I find it very entertaining. Go on.
|
|