• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
    Results 11 to 20 of 62
    1. #11
      DHoffmann's Avatar
      DHoffmann is offline Veteran Member
      34
      Mood:
      Amused
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2017
      Posts
      2,125
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      10,674
      CH Challenge
      159
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      10,811
      Level
      30
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      82.44%
      Rep Power
      328
      Lucifer rivaled God and therefore brought down his followers with him and deceived man... is this statement true?
      I believe that God created man in his image and therefore had every intent in creating mankind as his chosen.
      What a dilemma, I consider free will as an act of obedience and by betraying God we have become naturally selected to be slaves of sin unless directed otherwise which I believe God has done effectively through Christ.
      This topic is on another level so bare with me... I had a conversation online recently with a fellow who said that he "revels in sin" and called me "weak and closed minded", I rebuked him by stating that I have freedom now (freedom of choice) but when I was an atheist I had no freedom, I was a slave to sin, but I have liberty now in Christ.
      Point being, that just as it was in the beginning so it shall be in the end, Adam had liberty but "missed the mark" and lost it all causing mankind to fall with him, but now we are redeemable by the blood of Christ and have put on the "new Adam" where we have that liberty again (walk with God) wise as serpents and free BUT obedient through Faith and Grace in the Holy Spirit.
      Long lectures are rather boring, either you have 'it' or you don't and if you don't you wont even know it but if you 'do' you will show it

    2. Likes psalms 91, atpollard liked this post
    3. #12
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,555
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,026
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,882
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.11%
      Rep Power
      540
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      T is for TOTAL DEPRAVITY which can also be described as TOTAL INABILITY....

      Anyone have any questions ... or care to disagree and argue that people have some part of them that is still 100% perfect?
      I think it is not just a matter of us being out of synch or of being incapable. This point means that man, in his natural state, is estranged from God by sin. That is the ”depravity” spoken of in point #1.

    4. Likes atpollard liked this post
    5. #13
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah

      See the video in the opening post.... it's 9 minutes long and I realize that's too long for many, but it does a good job explaining these points.


      Please note that while Reformed (aka Calvinist) theology is usually defined as "TULIP" theology (what makes it distinctive) 1) this is only PART of Reformed/Calvinist theology and 2) MANY (some would say nearly all) Reformed/Calvinist reject at least some of these points or may strongly, radically modify them. We should not assume that one who identifies themselves as Reformed or Calvinist holds to these views (they probably don't). One Presbyterian minister posted, "Most Presbyterians hold that TULIP is just a pretty flower - and this goes as much for the clergy as the laity." Good to keep these in mind. This was a strong debate 400 years ago, not so much now since not too many hold to TULIP anymore.


      Calvinism
      and Arminianism are both logical constructs (I'd say equally so) but both run head-on into very clear Scripture. Go to any website where Calvinists and Arminians FIGHT and you'll fine endless posts, "That's directly against Scripture!" And they are both right.... the arguments are humanly logical but both aren't biblical. Lutherans approach Scripture with respect, humility and awe, and they are very hesitate to subject it to OUR "logic" or "reason" (even through such ends up contradicting what Scripture says). Yes.... we end up with some "loose ends" or "unanswered questions" or simply as "mystery" as Lutherans put it. We simply do not fully and humanly understand the "dynamics" or "workings" of all this, in exactly HOW all this "cranks out" in practice. Lutherans are okay with mystery.... Calvin and Arminius both insisted that God MUST be humanly logical (or He could not be God) and thus "answer" things via their own "logic."



      .
      The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God works in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

      .

      Yes, it seems few modern Calvinists actually accept TULIP...



      View/listen to the Lutheran video below. Are you saying you actually agree with Lutherans on this? Do you agree with the Lutheran position related by this pastor (whether or not you agree with his description of the uber-Calvinist position)?







      . Another point here....

      Pick up the video at minute 9 or so.... My beautiful wife was raised in a very conservative Reformed church and this is her main point. For example, she noted that she has been to the Plymouth Plantation in Plymouth, MA - the place of the Pilgrims. They were Calvinists.... and the church they founded, the first non-Anglican church in the English colonies, the original and historic Calvinist church - is now a Unitarian Universalist church (and has been since about the 1820's or so); indeed there are Unitarian Universalists churches all over New England and they were all once Calvinists. Calvinism, she notes, is all about what seems LOGICAL to the Calvinist - no matter how seriously that runs head-on into Scripture (no problem since God MUST be logical so if it SEEMS He is not, it must be spun so as to be logical). The rejection - eventually - of the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, and so much more by Calvinists all result from this rubric.

      But I digress.... this thread is about TULIP - the defining distictives of Calvinist/Reformed theology (which do seem to be mostly logical constructs). I agree with you that these mostly can't be traced to Calvin but rather are (over) reactions to the errors of the Arminianists by later-day Calvinists My wife (probably not me) would argue this process might well be what ultimately lead to Unitarian-Universalism (all "logic trumps Scripture") but certainly to the current displacement and/or "watering down" of all this.

      I'm curious what you think of Lutheran position related in this video - whether or not you agree with the portrayal of the later-day Calvinist invention.




      - Josiah



      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 11-01-2018 at 10:50 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    6. #14
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      Yes, it seems few modern Calvinists actually accept TULIP...



      View/listen to the Lutheran video below. Are you saying you actually agree with Lutherans on this? Do you agree with the Lutheran position related by this pastor (whether or not you agree with his description of the uber-Calvinist position)?




      . Another point here....

      Pick up the video at minute 9 or so.... My beautiful wife was raised in a very conservative Reformed church and this is her main point. For example, she noted that she has been to the Plymouth Plantation in Plymouth, MA - the place of the Pilgrims. They were Calvinists.... and the church they founded, the first non-Anglican church in the English colonies, the original and historic Calvinist church - is now a Unitarian Universalist church (and has been since about the 1820's or so); indeed there are Unitarian Universalists churches all over New England and they were all once Calvinists. Calvinism, she notes, is all about what seems LOGICAL to the Calvinist - no matter how seriously that runs head-on into Scripture (no problem since God MUST be logical so if it SEEMS He is not, it must be spun so as to be logical). The rejection - eventually - of the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, and so much more by Calvinists all result from this rubric.

      But I digress.... this thread is about TULIP - the defining distictives of Calvinist/Reformed theology (which do seem to be mostly logical constructs). I agree with you that these mostly can't be traced to Calvin but rather are (over) reactions to the errors of the Arminianists by later-day Calvinists My wife (probably not me) would argue this process might well be what ultimately lead to Unitarian-Universalism (all "logic trumps Scripture") but certainly to the current displacement and/or "watering down" of all this.

      I'm curious what you think of Lutheran position related in this video - whether or not you agree with the portrayal of the later-day Calvinist invention.

      - Josiah
      What I think is that few non-Calvinists (non-Reformed) accurately represent what TULIP and Reformed Theology actually believe and teach. I did watch the Lutheran video and found it to be no exception. I agree with his rejection of what a Calvinist would call Positive-Positive Schema Double Predestination (that God forces some people to be saved and God forces other people to be damned by the direct act of His divine will so that ‘salvation’ and ‘damnation’ are both equivalent acts of God) ... as would every Calvinist/Reformed Theologian that I am aware of. The video soundly defeats a straw man argument.

      Both R.C. Sproul and I were/are (he is dead) Reformed/Calvinists and both Mr Sproul and I believe in all 5 points of TULIP. Thus there are at lest two modern Calvinists that accept TULIP. What we do not believe is what Calvinists have never believed ... the form of Positive-Positive Double Predestination that you and that Lutheran video are ascribing to TULIP.

      Let me present an easier to understand version of TULIP

      [John 6:44 NIV] "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

      • No one can = Total Inability = We are powerless to save ourself
      • come to me = Limited Atonement = it is not about EVERYONE, it is about those who will come to Jesus.
      • unless the Father = Unconditional Election = the Father makes the decision, not the person
      • who sent me draws them, = Irrisistable Grace = God draws, compels like fish drawn in a net or like a sword drawn from its scabbard. The power to decide is in the hand of the Fisherman or the hand of the soldier or in the hand of God and not in the fish or the sword or the man.
      • and I will raise them up at the last day. = Perseverance of the Saints = Those whom God chooses to draw are those who will come to Jesus and those who come to Jesus are the same ones that Jesus WILL RAISE on the last day.

    7. #15
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      What I think is that few non-Calvinists (non-Reformed) accurately represent what TULIP and Reformed Theology actually believe and teach. I did watch the Lutheran video and found it to be no exception. I agree with his rejection of what a Calvinist would call Positive-Positive Schema Double Predestination (that God forces some people to be saved and God forces other people to be damned by the direct act of His divine will so that ‘salvation’ and ‘damnation’ are both equivalent acts of God) ... as would every Calvinist/Reformed Theologian that I am aware of. The video soundly defeats a straw man argument.

      Both R.C. Sproul and I were/are (he is dead) Reformed/Calvinists and both Mr Sproul and I believe in all 5 points of TULIP. Thus there are at lest two modern Calvinists that accept TULIP. What we do not believe is what Calvinists have never believed ... the form of Positive-Positive Double Predestination that you and that Lutheran video are ascribing to TULIP.

      Let me present an easier to understand version of TULIP

      [John 6:44 NIV] "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

      • No one can = Total Inability = We are powerless to save ourself
      • come to me = Limited Atonement = it is not about EVERYONE, it is about those who will come to Jesus.
      • unless the Father = Unconditional Election = the Father makes the decision, not the person
      • who sent me draws them, = Irrisistable Grace = God draws, compels like fish drawn in a net or like a sword drawn from its scabbard. The power to decide is in the hand of the Fisherman or the hand of the soldier or in the hand of God and not in the fish or the sword or the man.
      • and I will raise them up at the last day. = Perseverance of the Saints = Those whom God chooses to draw are those who will come to Jesus and those who come to Jesus are the same ones that Jesus WILL RAISE on the last day.

      Since God chose to Jesus to die for only a FEW people (and thus there is no possibilty for any other to be saved ), how can it be that God wills that all be saved? How can be be that God only "passes over some" with the gift of faith since faith is irrelevant for them anyway? It wouldn't matter since God chose to have Jesus not die for them, not save them. Doesn't the Calvinist invention of "Limited Atonement" (God chose to make Jesus' work meaningless for most people) mandate the "double" senario you claim modern Calvinists now reject?


      I only agree with the Total depravity part. The rest is a logical construct dependent on the assumption that God wants most to be damned - no matter what, even determining that Jesus' work will NOT be for them. IMO a direct and clear contradiction of Scripture. TULIP all seems designed to support that and to make salvation unknowable, uncertain, a matter of terror. Seems to me, TULIP makes Jesus irrelevant, faith irrelevant - all that matters is God's predetermination (positive and negative), a view that "fits" with Islam and the Greek idea of fate but IMO not with Scripture.


      - Josiah




      .
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    8. #16
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Where does scripture say that God wills all to be saved?

      Where did I ever claim that faith was unnecessary?

      You should reread the posts from RC Sproul, he does a thorough job of explaining the difference between your flawed Double Predestination and the Biblical Reformed Double Predestination. He also points out the folly of ‘single predestination’ like Lutherans claim to believe but cannot explain.
      Last edited by atpollard; 11-03-2018 at 11:03 PM.

    9. Likes MennoSota liked this post
    10. #17
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah

      Since God chose to Jesus to die for only a FEW people (and thus there is no possibilty for any other to be saved ), how can it be that God wills that all be saved? How can be be that God only "passes over some" with the gift of faith since faith is irrelevant for them anyway? It wouldn't matter since God chose to have Jesus not die for them, not save them. Doesn't the Calvinist invention of "Limited Atonement" (God chose to make Jesus' work meaningless for most people) mandate the "double" senario you claim modern Calvinists now reject?


      .
      Where does scripture say that God wills all to be saved?

      Among other places...

      1 Timothy 2:4
      2 Peter 3:9


      Yes, TULIP all appears to be a humanly "logical" construct all to support the assumption that God desires to populate Hell and thus assures it. And yes, since it all goes back to God's decision that Jesus would be meaningless and irrelevant for most people (regardless of whether they have faith or not).



      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 11-04-2018 at 09:52 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    11. #18
      MennoSota is offline Expert Member
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      4,055
      CH Cash
      17,079
      CH Challenge
      232
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      16,538
      Level
      36
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      81.31%
      Rep Power
      424
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      Among other places...

      1 Timothy 2:4
      2 Peter 3:9


      Yes, TULIP all appears to be a humanly "logical" construct all to support the assumption that God desires to populate Hell and thus assures it. And yes, since it all goes back to God's decision that Jesus would be meaningless and irrelevant for most people (regardless of whether they have faith or not).



      .
      Josiah, you know that both your references do not make your case. We have gone over both verses and shown, in context, why your claim is utterly wrong. I will not regurgitate the evidence against your claim. You should, at this point, have the hermeneutic skills to understand.

    12. #19
      Arsenios's Avatar
      Arsenios is offline Veteran Member
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Apr 2018
      Location
      Pacific North West
      Posts
      1,495
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      7,336
      CH Challenge
      352
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      5,268
      Level
      22
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.13%
      Rep Power
      113
      Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
      T is for TOTAL DEPRAVITY which can also be described as TOTAL INABILITY.

      The basic idea behind Total Depravity/Inability is not that people are sociopaths and as evil as they possibly can be.

      [But] ...that we cannot find God, God must find us.

      That is TOTAL DEPRAVITY.


      Anyone have any questions ... or care to disagree and argue that people have some part of them that is still 100% perfect?
      Thank-you...

      The term depravity is therefore a misnomer...

      Because depravity is indeed for sociopaths...

      Which explains popular conceptions about Total Depravity that are at odds with the Reformation...


      Arsenios

    13. #20
      atpollard is offline Prodigy Member
      56
      Married
      Mood:
      Meh
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Posts
      913
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      3,767
      CH Challenge
      42
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (10,500 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      6,758
      Level
      25
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      23.06%
      Rep Power
      209
      Quote Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post
      Thank-you...

      The term depravity is therefore a misnomer...

      Because depravity is indeed for sociopaths...

      Which explains popular conceptions about Total Depravity that are at odds with the Reformation...


      Arsenios
      NOW it is a misnomer (hence the preference among modern Reformed Theologians for ‘Total Inability’.)
      However, what was the meaning of ‘depravity’ in the 16th Century when the the foundations were being laid and many terms being first defined.

      It is not unlike the call in the KJV for the head of John the Baptist on a “Charger” ... I thought a charger was a medieval warhorse? Who ever describes a large serving tray as a charger these days? It made sense when the KJV was first written.


      Depravity (Oxford Dictionary): 1 Moral corruption; wickedness.
      1.1 Christian Theology: The innate corruption of human nature, due to original sin.
      Origin: Mid 17th century: alteration (influenced by deprave) of obsolete pravity, from Latin pravitas, from pravus ‘crooked, perverse’.

    Tags for this Thread

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •