# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Even The Angels Have Been Predestined To Glory Or Punishment

## Sola_Fide

> *1 Timothy 5:21
> 
> I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.*


Even the angels have been elected to glory, or doomed to punishment.

God has predestined every last inch of reality.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I 1 starred yer thread. Ya heathen.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *2 Pet. 2:4
> 
> For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment...*


Here is the doomed to destruction part...just in case anyone asks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I 1 starred yer thread. Ya heathen.


Why?  Do you have a problem when you read the Bible and it says these things?  Why not turn to the Lord of Glory and lean on Him alone for your salvation?

----------


## pcosmar

> Here is the doomed to destruction part...just in case anyone asks.


 and though past tense in eternity,, not so in our time,, only a few  have been committed to pits.

Do you believe there are spiritual beings at work in the world today? or like some, do you believe that was all in the past?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> and though past tense in eternity,, not so in our time,, only a few  have been committed to pits.


How do you know that? 




> Do you believe there are spiritual beings at work in the world today? or like some, do you believe that was all in the past?


Yes I do.

----------


## pcosmar

> How do you know that?


Scripture.

and how would some be released from the pit.(prophecy) if none were there already?

Enoch named several but not all,, about 200.

Hardly all of them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Scripture.
> 
> and how would some be released from the pit.(prophecy) if none were there already?
> 
> Enoch named several but not all,, about 200.
> 
> Hardly all of them.


The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch.  It was written in the first century.  It is a forgery.

----------


## pcosmar

> The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch.  It was written in the first century.  It is a forgery.


Tell that to Jude.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Tell that to Jude.


We've already been over this Pete.  Paul quoted Epimenides.   Paul did not think Epimenides was inspired Scripture.  There was no obligation  for the apostles to never quote the literature of their day.  And the book of Enoch certainly was of their day.  It was written in the first century,  and it was not written by Enoch.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I 1 starred yer thread. Ya heathen.


You can't say he's going against the Bible though.

----------


## wizardwatson

CALVINISM BALM

This is the best book I have read in a long time (The Fire of God's Anger).  Read it last year.  

It destroys the Calvinist doctrine from the ground up.  The author refers to the Presbyterian Church, but that's the doctrine they adhere to.

I've already told Sola_Fide to read it long back, doubtful he did, but I encourage everyone who can't find the words to figure out why the reformed teaching on judgement/hell/elect is wrong to read this very enlightening book.  It redeems the words of Paul, speaks well to God's character, Christs redemptive power and the beauty of the future divine economy.  I loved reading this.


The Fire of God's Anger

L.C. Baker

Written 1887

Free on Google Books (Read it now)
https://books.google.com/books?id=bF...0anger&f=false

Here's the Preface.  Punctuation a little wonky from copying from Google Books




> Preface
> 
> This book is a series of Bible studies from a new point of view of the burning question of *future punishment*. *Its author has served for many years in the ministry of the Presbyterian Church.* *No other church stands more in need of a free discussion of the vital questions raised in this volume.* He has herein asserted both for himself and for his brethren the right to inquire into matters about which he knows many of the ministers and members of that church are profoundly exercised, but concerning which many of them believe they are bound to keep silent. He cannot for a moment accept that low idea of the church which makes it a merely voluntary association formed in the interests of a certain system of doctrine. It is a living body formed for growth in knowledge and purity. And to such increase each member is bound to contribute as God may give him light and opportunity. This carries with it the right and just at this time of excited interest on this subject imposes the duty to reverently investigate the matters treated of in this volume. The author can render no higher service to his own church than to assert within her and for her this principle of liberty.
> 
> *These pages are prepared also in the interest of that large class of Christians in all churches who believe the Bible to be the Word of God and yet whose loyalty to it is put to a painful test by their inability to reconcile its teachings about future punishment with what have learned from its pages and from their own enlightened convictions of the character of God.* A church which builds hospitals for the sick and retreats for aged and the poor and the insane which seeks to carry Christ's consolation to men of every class maimed wounded in this battle of life which carries His to the sons of want on heathen shores and which into the life of Christ by so doing cannot long content with a view of His redeeming work makes death the limit of it and which stops her any further priestly ministry toward the ignorant and outcast beyond the grave. *In the present of the church upon this subject this book shows a perfectly satisfactory solution is to be found in Scriptures themselves by those who search for it fatal misconceptions have thus far prevented her perceiving it.
> 
> 1.  She has interpreted the Scripture teaching concerning final judgment as relating chiefly to a remote to be held after a general resurrection of the Whereas Jesus was careful to teach His disciples He would enter upon His office as Judge of the before that generation passed away 
> 
> 2.  She has therefore misconceived the place and meaning of resurrection in the divine economy as the gracious provision of another life to those who must the wages of sin under that judgment That which meant to be a boon the purchase of the ransom for all has been perverted into an untold curse to all have died unsaved in this life the prelude to an aggravated retribution and endless despair This mistake concerning the purpose of God in raising dead has vitiated the eschatology of the church for fifteen centuries It has drawn a mask over His face men to the knowledge of the only true God of Jesus Christ whom He has sent.*
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> CALVINISM BALM
> 
> This is the best book I have read in a long time (The Fire of God's Anger).  Read it last year.  
> 
> It destroys the Calvinist doctrine from the ground up.  The author refers to the Presbyterian Church, but that's the doctrine they adhere to.
> 
> I've already told Sola_Fide to read it long back, doubtful he did, but I encourage everyone who can't find the words to figure out why the reformed teaching on judgement/hell/elect is wrong to read this very enlightening book.  It redeems the words of Paul, speaks well to God's character, Christs redemptive power and the beauty of the future divine economy.  I loved reading this.
> 
> 
> ...



I don't make it a habit to read the books of annihilationist heretics.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Even the angels have been elected to glory, or doomed to punishment.
> 
> God has predestined every last inch of reality.


While elect is a common translation, it is hardly the only. The other examples are chosen messengers, choice messengers, and highest angels. 

http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/5-21.htm

So, I'm going to have to say that your assertion that "elect" here means predestined to glory or damnation is you looking to read your beliefs into that passage. Such an idea is not in it.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I don't make it a habit to read the books of annihilationist heretics.


You had me at "I don't make it a habit to read", then you lost me.

I don't think the text is annihilationist.  I also don't think the guy is a heretic.  I think it is true to the gospel and talks about redemption.  But that's just my informed opinion after reading the text.  You have a lot of credibility though so maybe your uninformed opinion holds more water.

I get not wanting to consider conflicting opinions.  It makes debating easier when it's "show me where the bible refutes my interpretation" rather than "which conflicting interpretation does the bible support more clearly".  Plus, the prospect of the elect having to roast their marshmallows over a wood fire instead of the tormented souls of the wicked sounds like a real bummer.

You know, you shouldn't take the insults all that serious.  It's more eye-rolling and attempts at clever sarcasm than any kind of hatred.  I give you credit just for being a participant here at RPF.  That counts for something.  Plus, like Paul was a persecutor of Christians before he was a saint, maybe God wants you to marinate in this false doctrine for some divine purpose of his.  Everyone is at different stages and has some scratch, crack or dent in there foolish preaching.  

So while my rhetorical punches to your doctrinal face might seem like disrespect to you personally, they are simply part of my highly polished Christian rebuke of my neighbor.

Otherwise known as love.

----------


## fisharmor

I don't think you need a whole book.
All you really need is these bullet points:

* Nobody who wrote anything in Scripture wrote it in English
* All of the novel Reformed ideas are by definition ideas that didn't exist prior
* Among these ideas are the entire idea of Sola Scriptura
* None of the originators of these novel refer back to anything that was written by anyone between the apostles and themselves, with the possible exception of Augustine

In short, they believe that for 1500 years God was sending straight to hell people who considered themselves Christian and faithfully followed what was handed down to them.

If that's a God you want to worship, I'm not stopping you, but if you don't, then you should know that there's a much larger group of people who don't believe that and consider those who do believe it as silly as you think they are.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I don't think you need a whole book.
> All you really need is these bullet points:
> 
> * Nobody who wrote anything in Scripture wrote it in English
> * All of the novel Reformed ideas are by definition ideas that didn't exist prior
> * Among these ideas are the entire idea of Sola Scriptura
> * None of the originators of these novel refer back to anything that was written by anyone between the apostles and themselves, with the possible exception of Augustine
> 
> In short, they believe that for 1500 years God was sending straight to hell people who considered themselves Christian and faithfully followed what was handed down to them.
> ...


Well, it amazed moreso from the picture it paints.  The reformed doctrine paints such a frozen dark image of the divine order that it's very refreshing and hopeful to see each verse they hang on dissected and held up against the light of Baker's more enlightened interpretation.  He was part of that reformed church, so he knows the verses to which they cling.  

Deals with all the "tormented day and night for ever and ever", "worm dieth not", lake of fire, etc., etc. verses that are used and sheds light on them from the Old Testament to paint a picture that left me with a sense (rather than feeling that Calvinism was off the mark) that it illuminated a vision I hadn't seen before.  Kind of like, "yes it negates Calvinism, but wait til you see why!"

I've read a lot of other Christian thinkers like Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Weil, C.S. Lewis, and I think this unknown from 1887 is a diamond in the rough and easily stands along side them.  I found it from a random google of words.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You had me at "I don't make it a habit to read", then you lost me.
> 
> I don't think the text is annihilationist.  I also don't think the guy is a heretic.  I think it is true to the gospel and talks about redemption.  But that's just my informed opinion after reading the text.  You have a lot of credibility though so maybe your uninformed opinion holds more water.
> 
> I get not wanting to consider conflicting opinions.  It makes debating easier when it's "show me where the bible refutes my interpretation" rather than "which conflicting interpretation does the bible support more clearly".  Plus, the prospect of the elect having to roast their marshmallows over a wood fire instead of the tormented souls of the wicked sounds like a real bummer.
> 
> You know, you shouldn't take the insults all that serious.  It's more eye-rolling and attempts at clever sarcasm than any kind of hatred.  I give you credit just for being a participant here at RPF.  That counts for something.  Plus, like Paul was a persecutor of Christians before he was a saint, maybe God wants you to marinate in this false doctrine for some divine purpose of his.  Everyone is at different stages and has some scratch, crack or dent in there foolish preaching.  
> 
> So while my rhetorical punches to your doctrinal face might seem like disrespect to you personally, they are simply part of my highly polished Christian rebuke of my neighbor.
> ...


It's ok.  You've never offended me.  I have very thick skin.  I have been called every name in the book on these boards.

People are much more willing to throw insults around online rather than face to face.

----------


## wizardwatson

> It's ok.  You've never offended me.  I have very thick skin.  I have been called every name in the book on these boards.
> 
> People are much more willing to throw insults around online rather than face to face.


That sounds like a video challenge.  

The religion subforum really needs a video based debate.  Put some voices and faces to these bold words.  

That people act more douchey online where they are anonymous is also a truism.  John 3:19-21  That people love sock-puppet land is no mystery.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That sounds like a video challenge.  
> 
> The religion subforum really needs a video based debate.  Put some voices and faces to these bold words.  
> 
> That people act more douchey online where they are anonymous is also a truism.  John 3:19-21  That people love sock-puppet land is no mystery.


Video debate?  Why?  There are much more qualified people who debate these things. Search Youtube.  No offense, but you reading one book and not much Bible reading wouldn't make for a good debate anyway.  

The better thing to do would just be to give your answer to the texts, like the one in the OP.  What I've done for years is to post the text of the Bible, then the discussion goes for dozens of pages and no one ever even touches the text of the OP.  I understand why.  

Are there elect angels and elect people?  The Bible says there is.  Why would you deny it?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Video debate?  Why?  There are much more qualified people who debate these things. Search Youtube.  No offense, but you reading one book and not much Bible reading wouldn't make for a good debate anyway.


I think you miss the point.  You are already debating.  Video would help to establish conviction with respect to your beliefs.

How many books does one have to read, by the way, before their testimony about Christ meets your standards?

Your schtick, which is clear to many by the way, is that if your interpretation is not refuted to your standard, that person has a heretical belief.  You have no evidence of their heretical belief other than their non-adherence to what you consider a correct doctrine.  You are not holding people to the standard of the bible, but to the standard of your self-imposed authority.  You have no awareness of others beliefs, because you don't care to look, but rather project upon everyone labels that are in conflict with your interpretation.

Instead of:

David is wrong because he believes this and the bible says that.

it's:

David is wrong because I have faith that this is the truth and he has not convinced me otherwise.

You have made truth your servant, rather than yourself a servant of truth.  Which is just a roundabout way of saying you serve a lie.

Perhaps you even have some martyr complex, "the world hates me, so Jesus would approve".  I wouldn't comfort yourself there.  You don't glorify Christ from what I've seen.  You are obsessed with God's power and control over matter and flesh.  In post #76/77/91 of your foreknowledge thread where Anti Federalist despaired at seeking Christ, you egged him on, "nope!  cannot, don't want to, every fiber in your body hates God".  Two other posters had to answer his despair on the name of Christ.  You seem to be too busy wallowing in the "glory of the elect" to give glory to the only Name under heaven by which you are saved, and would proclaim gleefully that "Jesus ain't for you!"

Food for thought.




> The better thing to do would just be to give your answer to the texts, like the one in the OP.  What I've done for years is to post the text of the Bible, then the discussion goes for dozens of pages and no one ever even touches the text of the OP.  *I understand why.*


I don't think you do, because I don't think you understand that you've been duped by a cunningly devised fable. 




> Are there elect angels and elect people?  The Bible says there is.  Why would you deny it?


elect, first, special, set apart.  There is more than one things.  There can be two, yes, but also three, four, etc.  God can punish some with few stripes, or many stripes, or not punish them.  Or something in the middle.  

This is why I say you bore.  

It isn't clever to support reformist doctrine by highlighting verses that use the vocabulary and then claim "you're just putting the words out there".  

The only "good" thing that comes out of it, is it's sport for the souls present who use it as an opportunity to refute it.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Here is the doomed to destruction part...just in case anyone asks.


God punishes the wicked.

God glorifies the righteous.  

When you leave these out and simply say "elected to glory, or doomed to punishment" you separate God from justice.  

It is not the bible causing offense.  It is Reformist twisting of focus and definition of words away from the way the bible strings those words together that is bringing the offense by separating God's justice from His righteousness, and setting his wrath and power as an idol in your heart saying "God is just because no one can oppose Him".

God is just because he has qualities of justice.  Not because he's omnipotent.

Next verse, please.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I like your style, wiz. Good stuff, man.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> * Nobody who wrote anything in Scripture wrote it in English
> * All of the novel Reformed ideas are by definition ideas that didn't exist prior
> * Among these ideas are the entire idea of Sola Scriptura
> * None of the originators of these novel refer back to anything that was written by anyone between the apostles and themselves, with the possible exception of Augustine


Of these points, the only one that's true is the first one. The others are utterly false.

The second point is a tautology, but it fails on the grounds that none of the ideas that are essential to Reformed theology are novel.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Of these points, the only one that's true is the first one. The others are utterly false.
> 
> The second point is a tautology, but it fails on the grounds that none of the ideas that are essential to Reformed theology are novel.


See, fisharmor?

Some people do need the whole book.

----------


## otherone

> That people act more douchey online where they are anonymous is also a truism.  John 3:19-21  That people love sock-puppet land is no mystery.


_It is perilously possible to make our conceptions of God like molten lead poured into a specially designed mould, and when it is cold and hard we fling it at the heads of the religious people who dont agree with us._

-Oswald Chambers

----------


## wizardwatson

> _It is perilously possible to make our conceptions of God like molten lead poured into a specially designed mould, and when it is cold and hard we fling it at the heads of the religious people who don’t agree with us._
> 
> -Oswald Chambers


Not sure what that quote has to do with what I said.

But if we're just quoting Oswald, found this one I like.




> “The remarkable thing about God is that when you fear God, you fear nothing else, whereas if you do not fear God, you fear everything else.”

----------


## otherone

> Not sure what that quote has to do with what I said.
> 
> But if we're just quoting Oswald, found this one I like.


It was in agreement with your virtual douchebaggery comment.  Love your quote, btw.  "America" is the golden calf.

----------


## lilymc

> I think you miss the point.  You are already debating.  Video would help to establish conviction with respect to your beliefs.
> 
> How many books does one have to read, by the way, before their testimony about Christ meets your standards?
> 
> Your schtick, which is clear to many by the way, is that if your interpretation is not refuted to your standard, that person has a heretical belief.  You have no evidence of their heretical belief other than their non-adherence to what you consider a correct doctrine.  You are not holding people to the standard of the bible, but to the standard of your self-imposed authority.  You have no awareness of others beliefs, because you don't care to look, but rather project upon everyone labels that are in conflict with your interpretation.
> 
> Instead of:
> 
> David is wrong because he believes this and the bible says that.
> ...



_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to wizardwatson again. _  

Thank you.

----------


## RJB

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to wizardwatson again. _  
> 
> Thank you.


Last I heard, he sees rep as an insult.  He was quite mad when I gave his brother a + rep.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to wizardwatson again. _  
> 
> Thank you.


Do you understand what he said?   I didn't.   Could you boil it down for me in a sentence or two?

----------


## fisharmor

> Of these points, the only one that's true is the first one. The others are utterly false.
> 
> The second point is a tautology, but it fails on the grounds that none of the ideas that are essential to Reformed theology are novel.


Sola Scriptura is absolutely novel.  We can trace it to exactly 1517.
At no point prior to this did anyone have the idea that Scripture was the sole rule and norm of the faith.  It simply didn't exist.
Primarily because it made as much sense then as it makes today: none.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola Scriptura is absolutely novel.  We can trace it to exactly 1517.
> At no point prior to this did anyone have the idea that Scripture was the sole rule and norm of the faith.  It simply didn't exist.
> Primarily because it made as much sense then as it makes today: none.


That's just ridiculous.  Did the apostles appeal to a church somewhere to get their doctrine?  Or did they use the Scripture to teach the gospel?

----------


## fisharmor

> That's just ridiculous. Did the apostles appeal to a church somewhere to get their doctrine? Or did they use the Scripture to teach the gospel?


You started this thread quoting an English translation of a letter written in Greek by a guy who was having Christians stoned at the time the apostles were teaching doctrine.
This is the Scripture you're saying was used to teach the gospel.  The one that didn't exist.

That is an inception of fail.  It's like a fail within a fail within a fail.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You started this thread quoting an English translation of a letter written in Greek by a guy having Christians stoned at the time the apostles were teaching doctrine.
> This is the Scripture you're saying was used to teach the gospel.  The one that didn't exist.
> 
> That is an inception of fail.  It's like a fail within a fail within a fail.


Hmmm...that is a very odd statement.  First, Paul was a converted Christian and apostle when he wrote his letters.  

Second, it doesn't matter what "translation" is used now from the original Greek text. English, Chinese,  whatever.  As long as it accurately reflects that the original Greek words are, it's good.

Third, the apostles themselves referred to Paul's letters as Scripture. You have an apostle calling another apostles written words Scripture. 

The problem still is that you don't have a Christian view of authority.  Jesus and the apostles did not appeal to a church or a synagogue for truth, they appealed to Scripture alone.

----------


## donnay

> Tell that to Jude.



*Genesis 5:22-24 (KJV)*

22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.


* Hebrews 11:5	(KJV)*
    By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 

*
Jude 1:14-25  (KJV)*
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Sola Scriptura is absolutely novel.  We can trace it to exactly 1517.


Really? How do you prove that it didn't exist prior to 1517? By my reading of the church fathers, I see a de facto position of sola scripture all over the place up until the Council of Nicaea.

And what document from 1517 would you point to as the one it traces to? I don't believe it's in Luther's 95 theses, is it?

----------


## fisharmor

> Hmmm...that is a very odd statement.  First, Paul was a converted Christian and apostle when he wrote his letters.  
> 
> Second, it doesn't matter what "translation" is used now from the original Greek text. English, Chinese,  whatever.  As long as it accurately reflects that the original Greek words are, it's good.
> 
> Third, the apostles themselves referred to Paul's letters as Scripture. You have an apostle calling another apostles written words Scripture. 
> 
> The problem still is that you don't have a Christian view of authority.  Jesus and the apostles did not appeal to a church or a synagogue for truth, they appealed to Scripture alone.


Oh, ok.  Show me where Jesus appealed to Paul's letters.

----------


## fisharmor

> Really? How do you prove that it didn't exist prior to 1517? By my reading of the church fathers, I see a de facto position of sola scripture all over the place up until the Council of Nicaea.
> 
> And what document from 1517 would you point to as the one it traces to? I don't believe it's in Luther's 95 theses, is it?


He is where the idea originates.

The problem with you lot is that you refuse to recognize that the word "Sola" appears in the term "Sola Scriptura".

No Roman Catholic and no Orthodox Christian denies Scripture as authoritative.
Not one.

But all of them deny the SOLA part.  It is not the only authority.  It can't be.  Because the idea is absurd.
And new.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> He is where the idea originates.


Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Once again, how do you prove that nobody held to the idea before that?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No Roman Catholic and no Orthodox Christian denies Scripture as authoritative.
> Not one.
> 
> But all of them deny the SOLA part.  It is not the only authority.  It can't be.  Because the idea is absurd.
> And new.


That's true. But there were no Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians for the first several centuries of the faith. Many of the doctrines that both of those denominations consider essential to the faith are novelties that the apostles never dreamed of. But long before there were Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, there were believers in Jesus whose de facto position was that of sola scriptura.

----------


## fisharmor

> Do you have any evidence to support this claim?


How can I prove that no theologian for the first 1500 years of Christianity used the term "Sola Scriptura" and no theologian considered Scripture the only rule and norm of the faith?

How am I supposed to prove the nonexistence of this idea?

The burden is on you to prove that it existed in the form submitted by Luther prior to the Reformation.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> How can I prove that no theologian for the first 1500 years of Christianity used the term "Sola Scriptura" and no theologian considered Scripture the only rule and norm of the faith?.


Good question. But you're the one who made the assertion. Did you actually have a reason to make it?

If you can't prove that no one over that time period considered Scripture the only rule and norm of the faith, then why did you say that?

Also, it's not about the literal phrase "sola scriptura," but the idea.

----------


## fisharmor

> That's true. But there were no Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians for the first several centuries of the faith. Many of the doctrines that both of those denominations consider essential to the faith are novelties that the apostles never dreamed of. But long before there were Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, there were believers in Jesus whose de facto position was that of sola scriptura.


The Council of Jerusalem is in Scripture, whether you want to admit it or not.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The Council of Jerusalem is in Scripture, whether you want to admit it or not.


Absolutely, I admit that. That was under the apostles and brothers of the Lord themselves, whose authoritative teachings are contained in the books of the New Testament.

And that is, in essence, what Sola Scriptura entails, adherence to the faith of the apostles, over against later innovations.

----------


## fisharmor

> If you can't prove that no one over that time period considered Scripture the only rule and norm of the faith, then why did you say that?


....I said that you can't prove that nobody considered Scripture the only rule and norm of the faith, because you can't prove that Scripture was the only rule and norm of the faith for anyone during that time period.

Yes, I said that.  You seem to be agreeing with me.

----------


## fisharmor

> Absolutely, I admit that. That was under the apostles and brothers of the Lord themselves, whose authoritative teachings are contained in the books of the New Testament.
> 
> And that is, in essence, what Sola Scriptura entails, adherence to the faith of the apostles, over against later innovations.


The letters to Timothy, referenced in the original post, are one of those later innovations.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> ....I said that you can't prove that nobody considered Scripture the only rule and norm of the faith, because you can't prove that Scripture was the only rule and norm of the faith for anyone during that time period.


All you're doing is repeating the same unfounded assertion.

What reason do you have for believing that "you can't prove that Scripture was the only rule and norm of the faith for anyone during that time period"?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The letters to Timothy, referenced in the original post, are one of those later innovations.


The ones written by Paul?

----------


## fisharmor

> All you're doing is repeating the same unfounded assertion.
> 
> What reason do you have for believing that "you can't prove that Scripture was the only rule and norm of the faith for anyone during that time period"?


I have two reasons.
1)  I've never been given any evidence, after years of looking, beyond what you've offered in this thread.  
"They believed Scripture was authoritative"
is not the same statement as
"They believed ONLY Scripture was authoritative".

2) The Church - the one church, prior to 1054 - accepted that the Holy Spirit continued to operate within the Church on Earth authoritatively through Holy Tradition.  The two branches which split in 1054 both still believe this.
Either both branches subsequently co-invented the idea, or it existed prior.

I'm aware of your claim that it was invented later, so let's segue:




> The ones written by Paul?




Yes, you just said that you accept the Council of Jerusalem only because it was held by those closest to Christ.  
I countered by saying that a letter written by a man who was an enemy of Christ for years after the Crucifixion is now considered canon.
What you're not telling me is, where exactly is your cutoff?
Is it Paul?
If you accept Paul, do you cut off what was written after Paul?
At some point between the Council of Jerusalem and 1517, you're claiming that the ability of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church was taken back.
I would like to know when that was.

I would also like to know where in Scripture it says this.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I have two reasons.
> 1)  I've never been given any evidence, after years of looking, beyond what you've offered in this thread.  
> "They believed Scripture was authoritative"
> is not the same statement as
> "They believed ONLY Scripture was authoritative".


But they did treat the Scriptures alone as having the level of authority they have. Prior to Nicaea, someone like Irenaeus would never have imagined that a bunch of bishops could get together and make authoritative pronouncements like they did at that Council, ostensibly speaking for God the same way the apostles did in Acts 15, and that their authority would derive from their speaking as "the Church" and not from the fact that their claims were based on the inspired scriptures. He would, however, have agreed with the doctrinal claims they made, because he found those same teachings in Scripture, and taught them himself. The way Irenaeus treated the Bible and other sources of authority was effectively the same as a sola scriptura position.




> 2) The Church - the one church, prior to 1054 - accepted that the Holy Spirit continued to operate within the Church on Earth authoritatively through Holy Tradition.  The two branches which split in 1054 both still believe this.
> Either both branches subsequently co-invented the idea, or it existed prior.
> 
> I'm aware of your claim that it was invented later, so let's segue:


What you call the "one church" is just a segment of the much larger Christian faith that existed throughout those centuries. At any point during the 900's, 800's, 700's, or any other time, there were always plenty of believers in Jesus, worshipping him and assembling in churches all over the world who were not under the authority of the bishops your "one church" recognized, many of whom never even knew that there were such bishops out there claiming to be such a thing.

Even at that, the organization you have in mind was a fairly recent development itself as of 1054. The pentarchy that Eastern Orthodoxy recognizes didn't have its special authority until the 600's, and it's not until around that same time that the bishop of Rome, then Gregory the Great, first asserted a degree of power resembling what we now know as the Pope.

And when prior to 1054 did this organization that you call the "one church" first claim that the Holy Spirit operated within the Church authoritatively through Holy Tradition?

Not any time before the Council of Nicaea, I don't think.





> Yes, you just said that you accept the Council of Jerusalem only because it was held by those closest to Christ.  
> I countered by saying that a letter written by a man who was an enemy of Christ for years after the Crucifixion is now considered canon.
> What you're not telling me is, where exactly is your cutoff?
> Is it Paul?
> If you accept Paul, do you cut off what was written after Paul?


My cutoff is just what I said already, the apostles. That includes Paul. The faith of the apostles is the true faith. No human beings of later generations have the authority to add novel doctrines to that faith and hold them up as being equal in authority to the teachings of the apostles themselves.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Hmmm...that is a very odd statement.  First, Paul was a converted Christian and apostle when he wrote his letters.  
> 
> Second, it doesn't matter what "translation" is used now from the original Greek text. English, Chinese,  whatever.  As long as it accurately reflects that the original Greek words are, it's good.
> 
> Third, the apostles themselves referred to Paul's letters as Scripture. You have an apostle calling another apostles written words Scripture. 
> 
> The problem still is that you don't have a Christian view of authority.  Jesus and the apostles did not appeal to a church or a synagogue for truth, they appealed to Scripture alone.


"Christian view of authority"?

They appealed to scripture?  Was it not by the Spirit that they wrote those words?  The apostles were given power by the Spirit to cure the blind, cast out demons, and raise the dead.  

Do you know anyone who can perform these miracles?  Do you yourself perform miracles as a testimony beyond doubt that the Spirit works within you, to claim authority in the church of the Lord?  If you can you should youtube it.  You have a large untapped fan base, I assure you.

The church of Philadelphia who holds the Key of David is hidden from our eyes, as well as the elect of God.  We await the appearance of the Two Witnesses who will give the final testimony before the appearance of the Lord.

There is no 'authority' because the marriage has not been consummated.  "I send you as sheep amidst the wolves".  We all burn the oil till his arrival.  

You err when you say the "elects authority comes from scripture".  The only authority IS scripture not FROM scripture, you do not know if you are elect.  Your job as a Christian is to present yourself as a virgin to Christ (2 Cor 11:2) not pretend you are already stuffed from the marriage feast that hasn't happened and start writing checks with the Lord's name on it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

JMdrake,

If even the angels are elected, what does this mean?

----------


## jmdrake

> JMdrake,
> 
> If even the angels are elected, what does this mean?


That Anti_Federlist is right and YHWH is the biggest troll ever and not worthy of praise or honor.  But I don't believe that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That Anti_Federlist is right and YHWH is the biggest troll ever and not worthy of praise or honor.  But I don't believe that.


But the angels _are_ elected.  




> *1 Timothy 5:21
> 
> I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.*


It seems like you have a tough decision to make, Jmdrake.

----------


## jmdrake

> But the angels _are_ elected.  
> 
> It seems like you have a tough decision to make, Jmdrake.


Not at all.  Your definition of "elect" is unbiblical.  But if it was biblical (and it isn't), then God has already made the decision for me and you are a liar for claiming I have a tough decision to make.  That the problem with your philosophy.  Not only is it unbiblical but it is completely and totally illogical and it forces you to contradict yourself every time you try to defend it.  You used to be a staunch supporter of Calvin until you realized that he couldn't consistently defend your crap so you turned on him as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not at all.  Your definition of "elect" is unbiblical.  But if it was biblical (and it isn't), then God has already made the decision for me and you are a liar for claiming I have a tough decision to make.  That the problem with your philosophy.  Not only is it unbiblical but it is completely and totally illogical and it forces you to contradict yourself every time you try to defend it.  You used to be a staunch supporter of Calvin until you realized that he couldn't consistently defend your crap so you turned on him as well.


What does Paul mean when he says the elect angels?

----------


## jmdrake

> What does Paul mean when he says the elect angels?


He doesn't mean what you think he means.  He doesn't mean that God forced Satan and the other angels who fell to sin.

_James 1:13-15King James Version (KJV)

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death._

God created the angels perfect.  He created Adam and Eve perfect.  So you can't fall back on your "God is just allowing man to follow his own evil nature" excuse.  God created the angels and Adam and Eve perfect.  But if God purposed them to sin then James is lying when he says "Let no man say he is tempted of God."  What James should say, if you are right (and you're not) is "Every man should say that it's really God's fault when he falls into temptation because that is God's purpose for his life."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He doesn't mean what you think he means.  He doesn't mean that God forced Satan and the other angels who fell to sin.
> 
> _James 1:13-15King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
> 
> 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
> 
> 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death._
> ...


Jmdrake, who are you talking to?

I don't believe God forces anyone to sin.  Men sin willfully.  They want to do the sin they do.

Why do say that to me as if it describes my position?

----------


## Superfluous Man

..

----------


## Superfluous Man

> But if God purposed them to sin then James is lying when he says "Let no man say he is tempted of God."


That's not true. James doesn't say that God never purposed anyone to sin. There are lots of examples throughout the Bible of God purposing people to sin. But God does not bring about this purpose in a way that relieves each individual of culpability for their own sins.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's not true. James doesn't say that God never purposed anyone to sin. There are lots of examples throughout the Bible of God purposing people to sin. But God does not bring about this purpose in a way that relieves each individual of culpability for their own sins.


If God purposed original sin then God is the one doing the tempting.  There is ho honest way around that.  Of course you'll find a dishonest way.  All of the other places in the Bible are talking about people who were already bent towards sin and God simply let them follow their own inclinations.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If God purposed original sin then God is the one doing the tempting.  There is ho honest way around that.  Of course you'll find a dishonest way.


First of all, stop trying to end the debate by calling someone who you disagree with "dishonest".  No one else is calling you dishonest.  

You have not shown that God purposing sin would exist equals God is tempting a person with sin.    




> All of the other places in the Bible are talking about people who were already bent towards sin and God simply let them follow their own inclinations.


That is just plainly false.  Did have a purpose in raising up Pharaoh? Romans 9 says He did.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If God purposed original sin then God is the one doing the tempting.  There is ho honest way around that.  Of course you'll find a dishonest way.


There is an honest way around it.

The honest way around it is that you simply made up that rule and asserted it. There is no logical proof that forces the conclusion that God's purposing original sin must mean that God is the one doing the tempting.

If you want to say that God is indirectly doing the tempting since Satan is the means God uses to accomplish his ends, then you can say that. But that isn't what James is talking about. James is denying that we can avoid culpability for our sins because we choose to commit them according to our own desires. Incidentally, James also doesn't refer to Satan tempting us in that passage, but to our own desires.

Ultimately, we have the desires we have because God chose that we would have them. They didn't come about from some other chain of causation going back to some other uncaused first cause besides God himself. But the reason we are culpable for them is because they are OUR desires. The belong to us with the natures we have. Likewise with Adam, his desires belonged to him with the nature he had. The choices he made were according to those desires that belonged to his nature. They weren't uncaused or haphazard. They were caused by efficient causes. He, with the nature he had in the circumstances he was in, was going to choose to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when that moment of testing happened. Given all the prior factors, there was a 0% chance that it would happen any other way. And as James says, in order for Adam to be culpable for his sin, this has to be the case. it must be that his choice is not uncaused, but rather results from his desires.

----------


## jmdrake

> First of all, stop trying to end the debate by calling someone who you disagree with "dishonest".  No one else is calling you dishonest.


I will call it like I see it and I've already shown SM to be dishonest.




> You have not shown that God purposing sin would exist equals God is tempting a person with sin.


You have not shown a way where God to purpose sin *in a being that He create "perfect"* without God actually tempting that being to sin.  You can't fall back on the "God just left that person to his/her/its own sinful nature" because that being was created without a sinful nature.




> That is just plainly false.  Did have a purpose in raising up Pharaoh? Romans 9 says He did.


Pharaoh was born with a sinful nature.  Come on.  Don't throw up such stupid arguments.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is an honest way around it.
> 
> The honest way around it is that you simply made up that rule and asserted it. There is no logical proof that forces the conclusion that God's purposing original sin must mean that God is the one doing the tempting.


You have no other logical explanation as to how God could create something, declare it "perfect" and then purpose it to sin.  Not unless you are now calling sin "perfection."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You have no other logical explanation as to how God could create something, declare it "perfect" and then purpose it to sin.  Not unless you are now calling sin "perfection."


What verse are you talking about?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You have no other logical explanation as to how God could create something, declare it "perfect" and then purpose it to sin.  Not unless you are now calling sin "perfection."


I don't see why you believe this. Again, it's just a bare assertion on your part.

I also have to note, again, the way you're using the word "perfect." Adam was sinless, but he wasn't perfect, nor does God call him perfect.

God did create Adam and purpose him to sin, just as every single event that ever has or ever will happen is according to God's purpose (Ephesians 1:11). That doesn't entail calling sin perfection. Adam, as a sinless being, had such a nature that given the circumstances of the test God gave him he was going to sin. He didn't have to be totally depraved for this to be the case.

Likewise with Satan, however it was that he became sinful, his nature was such that under the circumstances he was in he, though not originally sinful, was going to become sinful.

All of this according to God's purpose. There's nothing illogical about it.

----------


## jmdrake

> What verse are you talking about?


What do you mean "what verse am I talking about?"  Are you saying that Adam and Eve were not created perfect but were created sinners?  Are you saying that the angels were created sinners?  Define what you are arguing against.  I'm done playing silly games.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't see why you believe this. Again, it's just a bare assertion on your part.


I'm not going down the lies and obfuscation path with you again.

Do you or do you not believe God created Adam and Eve sinless?

Do you or do you not believe God created all of the angels initially sinless?

Do you believe God created Adam and Even and the angels that fell with sin in them?

If you believe that, then cite the verses that support your beliefs.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Do you or do you not believe God created Adam and Eve sinless?


I do.




> Do you or do you not believe God created all of the angels initially sinless?


I do.




> Do you believe God created Adam and Even and the angels that fell with sin in them?


No. But he did create them such that they were going to sin at the points that they did. He could have created other versions of them that would not have ever sinned if he had wanted to. But he chose to create the versions that were going to.

----------


## jmdrake

> I do.
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> 
> 
> No. But he did create them such that they were going to sin at the points that they did. He could have created other versions of them that would not have ever sinned if he had wanted to. But he chose to create the versions that were going to.


If He created them so that they had no other choice but to ultimately sin then He created them sinful.  You can pretend that isn't true but it is.

Edit: I notice you ignored this part:

If you believe that, then cite the verses that support your beliefs.

So I will repeat it.  Whatever it is you believe, please cite the verses that support that belief.  Cite the verses in the Bible that say that Satan and the evil angels were created with no other choice than to rebel against God.  Cite the verses that Adam and Eve were created with no other choice than to sin against God.  None of this "Well the Bible can be interpreted this way" stuff.  If I have to have a specific Bible verse that exactly says "Satan is Lucifer" or you will "commentary" your way out of the truth, then you have to have a verse that says "God created Adam/Eve and Satan with the express purpose that they would sin against Him."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If He created them so that they had no other choice but to ultimately sin then He created them sinful.  You can pretend that isn't true but it is.
> 
> Edit: I notice you ignored this part:
> 
> If you believe that, then cite the verses that support your beliefs.
> 
> So I will repeat it.  Whatever it is you believe, please cite the verses that support that belief.  Cite the verses in the Bible that say that Satan and the evil angels were created with no other choice than to rebel against God.  Cite the verses that Adam and Eve were created with no other choice than to sin against God.  None of this "Well the Bible can be interpreted this way" stuff.  If I have to have a specific Bible verse that exactly says "Satan is Lucifer" or you will "commentary" your way out of the truth, then you have to have a verse that says "God created Adam/Eve and Satan with the express purpose that they would sin against Him."


The proof that God could have created man that could not sin is that God can and does do anything He wants.  But He didn't do it.  Also, the Bible says over and over again that He has a purpose in all things.  Do you need the verses that say this?  I can find them if you want, but I think you should know them already.

Here's a question Jmdrake.  How could God tell everyone what the future would be if He didn't intend to bring it about that way?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If He created them so that they had no other choice but to ultimately sin then He created them sinful.  You can pretend that isn't true but it is.


I never said they had no other choice. But the choice they were going to make is the choice they were going to make. There was a 0% chance that they were going to choose otherwise. Of course this percentage is from God's omniscient perspective. From a human perspective, including their own human perspectives, nobody knows enough to be able to say with 100% certainty what choice someone will make all the time. But this uncertainty from our vantage point doesn't change the fact that our choices do have efficient causes, and those efficient causes have other causes, ultimately going back to one and only one uncaused first cause of God.

He could have created other versions of them who would have made other choices such that nobody would ever sin. But he chose to create the versions that were going to sin.

And that does not necessitate that he created them sinful. They weren't sinful until they actually sinned.

You have this habit of just making up rules and insisting that they are so, whether you can prove them or not.

You also have a habit of rewording other people's positions into something they never said and then attacking that straw man. I won't try to give you verses saying Satan had no other choice but to rebel, because I have never made that claim.

I could very easily cite numerous instances in the Bible of God foreordaining that people would commit sins though. And none of these examples would mean that these people had no other choice, nor that God forced them to do it, nor that he tempted them to sin, nor that he himself committed any sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> He could have created other versions of them who would have made other choices such that nobody would ever sin.


Who says that He didn't?  The Bible doesn't.  Only your frail human mind that has trouble grasping reality beyond what you can imagine tells you that.

----------


## jmdrake

> The proof that God could have created man that could not sin is that God can and does do anything He wants.  But He didn't do it.


You don't know that He didn't do it.  Your frail human mind which is stunted by pseudo Cavlinism from understanding theoretical physics prevents you from contemplating other possibilities.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who says that He didn't?  The Bible doesn't.  Only your frail human mind that has trouble grasping reality beyond what you can imagine tells you that.


Where do get that idea?  I'm asking seriously.  Do you get that from Genesis?   I'm asking seriously.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Who says that He didn't?  The Bible doesn't.  Only your frail human mind that has trouble grasping reality beyond what you can imagine tells you that.


But he DID create the versions that DID choose to sin. There's no getting around that. That is reality. There is no such thing as reality (meaning all that actually exists) not including beings who sin, since reality does include beings who sin. It didn't have to be the case. But it is. And that is ultimately by God's design.

No amount of other creations outside of our knowledge that lack sin can change the fact that God chose to create reality such that it does include sin.

----------


## Superfluous Man

Q: In all of what God has created, does this totality of creation include any beings ever sinning or not?
A: It includes beings sinning.

Q: Could God have created some other totality of creation that would not ever include any beings sinning if he had wanted to?
A: Yes, if that were according to his perfect nature and will to do so, he could have.

Q: Did he?
A: No. We know this because sinning beings do exist. So any subset of all that God created in which sinning beings do not exist is less than the totality of creation.

----------


## jmdrake

> But he DID create the versions that DID choose to sin.


If you actually understood quantum mechanics you would understand that realities are possibly created on the fly by the choices made by the actors in that reality.  But you don't understand quantum mechanics so talking to you about it is like trying to explain calculus to the typical 2nd grader.  The 2nd grader was taught "You can't divide by zero" so when you try to talk about the limit of an equation as the denominator approaches zero the 2nd grader's mind is blown.  That's the way this conversation is going.  Watch the videos I posted in the other thread before you try to respond.  And read up on the Schrodinger's cat experiment as well.

----------


## jmdrake

> Where do get that idea?  I'm asking seriously.  Do you get that from Genesis?   I'm asking seriously.


Where did you get that Lucifer was not Satan?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If you actually understood quantum mechanics you would understand that realities are possibly created on the fly by the choices made by the actors in that reality.  But you don't understand quantum mechanics so talking to you about it is like trying to explain calculus to the typical 2nd grader.  The 2nd grader was taught "You can't divide by zero" so when you try to talk about the limit of an equation as the denominator approaches zero the 2nd grader's mind is blown.  That's the way this conversation is going.  Watch the videos I posted in the other thread before you try to respond.  And read up on the Schrodinger's cat experiment as well.


You don't understand quantum mechanics, so let's not pretend either of us do. I did take 5 semesters of physics in my undergrad for what that's worth, only one of which included quantum mechanics, and that at a rudimentary level. If you're talking about Schrodinger's cat, which is not an experiment, unless you just mean a thought experiment, then I'm familiar with it.

But this is not a matter of quantum mechanics, nor is it a matter of what any of us can or cannot imagine. It's a matter of logic. We are not permitted here to violate the laws of logic. If you are fine with violating the laws of logic, then there's no point in discussing this.

Reality, meaning all that actually does exist, does include beings who commit sin. God could have created reality (meaning all that actually does exist) such that no beings would ever sin, but he did not, as proven by the fact that beings who commit sin do exist.

P.S. The second grader is right. You really can't divide by zero. There is no limit to an equation whose denominator approaches zero. It's a null set.

----------


## jmdrake

> Q: In all of what God has created, does this totality of creation include any beings ever sinning or not?
> A: It includes beings sinning.
> 
> Q: Could God have created some other totality of creation that would not ever include any beings sinning if he had wanted to?
> A: Yes, if that were according to his perfect nature and will to do so, he could have.
> 
> Q: Did he?
> A: No. We know this because sinning beings do exist. So any subset of all that God created in which sinning beings do not exist is less than the totality of creation.


Again read up on Schrodinger's cat before you attempt to answer something you clearly don't understand.  

Q. Could God create beings with the power to choose?
A. Yes.

Q. What realities exist?
A. That depends on the sum totals of the choices made by any being able to make choices.

So Adam and Eve have the choice to eat the fruit.  Eve could have chosen no.  According to QM theory Eve DID make the no choice.  The two realities exist because both realities exist and because the actor had a choice.  Did God purposefully think "Hmmmm....I'll make this Eve make this choice and I'll make this other Eve make this other choice?"  If it helps your feeble mind to think about it that way I suppose, but there's no reason to do so.  You can simply accept that God didn't stop the choice, *either* choice.  If you want God to be as limited as you can imagine Him to be fine.  But that's on your lack of understanding and not on Him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where did you get that Lucifer was not Satan?


Frankly,  I don't even know enough about that to comment on it.

If God created other realities, then how could they not have been affected by man's sin?

----------


## jmdrake

> You don't understand quantum mechanics, so let's not pretend either of us do. I did take 5 semesters of physics in my undergrad for what that's worth, only one of which included quantum mechanics, and that at a rudimentary level. If you're talking about Schrodinger's cat, which is not an experiment, unless you just mean a thought experiment, then I'm familiar with it.
> 
> But this is not a matter of quantum mechanics, nor is it a matter of what any of us can or cannot imagine. It's a matter of logic. We are not permitted here to violate the laws of logic. If you are fine with violating the laws of logic, then there's no point in discussing this.
> 
> Reality, meaning all that actually does exist, does include beings who commit sin. God could have created reality (meaning all that actually does exist) such that no beings would ever sin, but he did not, as proven by the fact that beings who commit sin do exist.


I'm not violating the laws of logic.  *You and Sola_fide are and you have been repeatedly!*  Case in point when you two say nonsense like "If reality is infinite does that mean there is a reality that where God does not exist?"  That's just asinine.  I know that was SF and not you, but you both have the same mentality.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Again read up on Schrodinger's cat before you attempt to answer something you clearly don't understand.  
> 
> Q. Could God create beings with the power to choose?
> A. Yes.
> 
> Q. What realities exist?
> A. That depends on the sum totals of the choices made by any being able to make choices.
> 
> So Adam and Eve have the choice to eat the fruit.  Eve could have chosen no.  According to QM theory Eve DID make the no choice.  The two realities exist because both realities exist and because the actor had a choice.  Did God purposefully think "Hmmmm....I'll make this Eve make this choice and I'll make this other Eve make this other choice?"  If it helps your feeble mind to think about it that way I suppose, but there's no reason to do so.  You can simply accept that God didn't stop the choice, *either* choice.  If you want God to be as limited as you can imagine Him to be fine.  But that's on your lack of understanding and not on Him.


I'm not sure why you insist on pluralizing the word "realities." Nothing in quantum mechanics justifies that. If the Time Magazine article on Schrodinger you read said otherwise, it was wrong.

Given that reality is all that exists, and given that beings who sin do exist, the claim that reality does not include beings who sin is a false claim. There is no reality in which it is a true claim, because reality is all that exists.




> According to QM theory Eve DID make the no choice.  The two realities exist because both realities exist and because the actor had a choice.


You are mistaken. QM theory does not say that. You are extrapolating from Schrodinger's cat to something that it does not relate to.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not violating the laws of logic.  *You and Sola_fide are and you have been repeatedly!*  Case in point when you two say nonsense like "If reality is infinite does that mean there is a reality that where God does not exist?"  That's just asinine.  I know that was SF and not you, but you both have the same mentality.


What law of logic does that even violate?

----------


## jmdrake

> Frankly,  I don't even know enough about that to comment on it.
> 
> If God created other realities, then how could they not have been affected by man's sin?


If there is a parallel universe which has 3D space that has not intersected the 3D space of our universe how could it be affected by man's sin?

----------


## jmdrake

> What law of logic does that even violate?


Seriously?  I've explained this multiple times already.  *sigh*.  This is my *last post* tonight.  I've wasted too much time on you already.

One more time.  Infinite != all possibilities.

One more time.  There are an infinite number of whole numbers but that doesn't mean all possible numbers all whole numbers.

Any questions?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I'm not violating the laws of logic.


Maybe I misunderstand you.

But if you are saying that there exists a reality (meaning all that exists) in which sinning beings do not exist, while at the same time admitting that sinning beings do exist, then you are violating the laws of logic.

If you are not saying that, then good. Perhaps you agree with me after all.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If there is a parallel universe which has 3D space that has not intersected the 3D space of our universe how could it be affected by man's sin?


Even if there is such a parallel universe, it wouldn't change the fact that reality, which includes this universe, does include beings that sin.

God could have created reality such that nobody would ever sin anywhere. But he did not.

This is true with or without free will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If there is a parallel universe which has 3D space that has not intersected the 3D space of our universe how could it be affected by man's sin?


Who in the world would know that?  How does the New heaven and the new earth play in to that?  Is the new heaven and new earth going to be the summation of that reality too?

----------


## jmdrake

> Maybe I misunderstand you.
> 
> But if you are saying that there exists a reality (meaning all that exists) in which sinning beings do not exist, while at the same time admitting that sinning beings do exist, then you are violating the laws of logic.
> 
> If you are not saying that, then good. Perhaps you agree with me after all.


There can exist spacetimes beyond the possibility of direct interaction with our spacetime where sin does not exist.

----------


## pcosmar

> There can exist spacetimes beyond the possibility of direct interaction with our spacetime where sin does not exist.


I suppose it is possible. I always did like the "what if" of Sci-Fi.

I am more concerned with the current realities.

----------


## jmdrake

> Even if there is such a parallel universe, it wouldn't change the fact that reality, which includes this universe, does include beings that sin.
> 
> God could have created reality such that nobody would ever sin anywhere. But he did not.
> 
> *This is true with or without free will.*


You picked your nickname correctly "superfluous man."  Yes.  God could have prevented any universe existing where sin exists and He did not.  That doesn't, however, make God the creator of sin.  Rather it makes Him the creator of freewill.  Because freewill, by definition, means that beings have the ability to make the wrong choice.  And, if every possible universe exists in the multiverse, that means that sin had to be allowed in order to allow for freewill.  

Now God can limit the number of possible universes while still allowing for an infinite number of universes.  For example, I don't believe that any universe exists where there is sin but no savior.  And since there are many more ways things can go wrong than they can go right, there can only be a tiny fraction of sinless universes in the sea of sinful universes.

----------


## jmdrake

> I suppose it is possible. I always did like the "what if" of Sci-Fi.
> 
> I am more concerned with the current realities.


I agree.  Understanding and implementing "whatsoever it is that ye would that men do unto you do ye also unto them" is really of far more consequence than the debate over whether or not some of us are predestined to attempt to follow the golden rule or not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There can exist spacetimes beyond the possibility of direct interaction with our spacetime where sin does not exist.


How could that be? Sin affected the entire universe.

----------


## jmdrake

> How could that be? Sin affected the entire universe.


*facepalm* You realize that it is possible for there to be more than one universe?

Question.  We know that when Jesus comes again He will destroy the world with fire to cleanse it from sin.  Do you believe He will destroy all of the entire universe?  What is the basis for your believe on that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *facepalm* You realize that it is possible for there to be more than one universe?
> 
> Question.  We know that when Jesus comes again He will destroy the world with fire to cleanse it from sin.  Do you believe He will destroy all of the entire universe?  What is the basis for your believe on that?


No.  I'm sorry, that is not possible.  Sin affected the entire creation:




> *Romans 8:20
> 
> For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.*


The whole creation was subjected to futility.

It's interesting too, because the whole creation was "subjected to futility, NOT willingly, but because of Him who subjected it...." So that the sons of God obtain freedom.

Let that verse sink in.

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  I'm sorry, that is not possible.  Sin affected the entire creation:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole creation was subjected to futility.
> 
> It's interesting too, because the whole creation was "subjected to futility, NOT willingly, but because of Him who subjected it...." So that the sons of God obtain freedom.
> 
> Let that verse sink in.


Oh I'm familiar with that verse and I knew you were going to misconstrue and misuse it.  All of creation *on this earth* and possibly in this universe is under the effect of man's sin.  That doesn't mean that all of creation everywhere is.  Are the angels dying?  Nope.  They were created though weren't they?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh I'm familiar with that verse and I knew you were going to misconstrue and misuse it.  All of creation *on this earth* and possibly in this universe is under the effect of man's sin.  That doesn't mean that all of creation everywhere is.  Are the angels dying?  Nope.  They were created though weren't they?


It doesn't say earth or universe, it says creation.  The WHOLE creation...everything that was "created"...has been subjected to futility, not because it was willing, but because of Him who subjected it.

What you've been proposing is not Biblical.

----------


## jmdrake

> It doesn't say earth or universe, it says creation.  The WHOLE creation...everything that was "created"...has been subjected to futility, not because it was willing, but because of Him who subjected it.
> 
> What you've been proposing is not Biblical.


It's funny how you get hyperlitteral when you think the Bible supports your position and figurative when it doesn't.  For example:

_1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world._

So when it suits you, you believe that "the whole world" doesn't mean "the whole world" but then you believe "all of creation" means "all of creation."

So...explain this.  In your worldview how are angels who have never sinned and are not subject to death affected by sin?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's funny how you get hyperlitteral when you think the Bible supports your position and figurative when it doesn't.  For example:
> 
> _1 John 2:2
> And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world._
> 
> So when it suits you, you believe that "the whole world" doesn't mean "the whole world" but then you believe "all of creation" means "all of creation."
> 
> So...explain this.  In your worldview how are angels who have never sinned and are not subject to death affected by sin?


Because that verse says HE IS the propitiation.   Not "he could be".  If sins are propitiated, then there is no charge that can be laid against them.  They are innocent.  Saved.

All men are not saved, therefore the verse can't be speaking of all men everywhere.  John uses the language of "world" in over 7 different ways in his letters.

The verse says THE WHOLE CREATION.  That means everything that was created.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Seems like atonement is there for all who are in His church. 




> *Romans 10:13*
> 
> for, “*Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord* will be saved.”






> *Revelation 21:6*
> He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. *To the thirsty I will give* water without cost from the spring of the water of life.






> *Matthew 11:28*
> “*Come to me, all you who are* weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.





> *Revelation 5:9*
> 
> And they sang a new song, saying:“You are worthy to take the scroll 
> and to open its seals,
> because you were slain,
> and with your blood you purchased for God
> persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.






> *Matthew 26:28*This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


While Jesus died for those in the covenant of grace, it reads like the Lord says that anyone can enter that covenant by becoming a Christian. His Church. "His sheep" (John 10:11)... "His friends" (John 15:13)... "many"(Heb. 9:28). Naw?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Seems like atonement is there for all who are in His church. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The atonement "is there" for the church.  No.  The atonement _was made_ for the church only:




> Ephesians 5:25-27
> 
> Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.


The atonement is what makes one a Christian, not the other way around.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You picked your nickname correctly "superfluous man."  Yes.  God could have prevented any universe existing where sin exists and He did not.  That doesn't, however, make God the creator of sin.  Rather it makes Him the creator of freewill.  Because freewill, by definition, means that beings have the ability to make the wrong choice.


God could have created this universe he created (that is, all that exists other than himself), including beings with free will, such that nobody was ever going to sin.

However, he chose not to do that. He chose to create this universe (all that exists other than himself) in which beings were going sin.

So obviously, no appeal to free will, can explain why God chose to create this creation in which beings were going to sin.

Incidentally, I don't think I have ever said that God created sin.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> It's funny how you get hyperlitteral when you think the Bible supports your position and figurative when it doesn't.  For example:
> 
> _1 John 2:2
> And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world._
> 
> So when it suits you, you believe that "the whole world" doesn't mean "the whole world" but then you believe "all of creation" means "all of creation."
> 
> So...explain this.  In your worldview how are angels who have never sinned and are not subject to death affected by sin?


Are you saying that 1 John 2:2 teaches universal salvation?

From the context of the passage, I don't see how that's possible. Throughout 1 John are references to people who are not saved. But, of all those who are saved, as 1 John 2:2 says, they are all saved by Jesus. No one in the world is saved any other way.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> There can exist spacetimes beyond the possibility of direct interaction with our spacetime where sin does not exist.


Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're right. Even if that's true, those space-times can't possibly exhaust all that God created, since we know that he created this space-time in which beings sin. So the fact remains that God chose to create a totality of all that he created in which beings were going to sin. He didn't have to. And even including free will doesn't change that, since he could have created beings with free will who were never going to sin. But he chose not to do that. He chose to create a totality of all that he created in which beings were going to sin.

----------


## Jamesiv1

Here is some space-time for you

----------


## jmdrake

> Because that verse says HE IS the propitiation.   Not "he could be".  If sins are propitiated, then there is no charge that can be laid against them.  They are innocent.  Saved.


LOL.  You're tripping all over yourself with your self contradictions and inconsistencies.  Angels never sinned therefor angels do not fall under the curse of sin.  Now if you want to take the view that angels are affected by sin because seeing what happens to sinners is burdensome...okay.  But that's not my argument.




> All men are not saved, therefore the verse can't be speaking of all men everywhere.  John uses the language of "world" in over 7 different ways in his letters.


Circular reasoning which depends upon a belief in TULIP.  Fail on your part.




> The verse says THE WHOLE CREATION.  That means everything that was created.


Answer the question that you are cowardly avoiding.  Do angels who never sinned fall under the curse of sin?

----------


## jmdrake

> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're right. Even if that's true, those space-times can't possibly exhaust all that God created, since we know that he created this space-time in which beings sin. So the fact remains that God chose to create a totality of all that he created in which beings were going to sin. He didn't have to. And even including free will doesn't change that, since he could have created beings with free will who were never going to sin. But he chose not to do that. He chose to create a totality of all that he created in which beings were going to sin.


You are limiting freewill to only include making choices that were not sinful.  If freewill includes the ability to choose sin, and if quantum mechanics multiverse theory is correct, then every choice that could possibly exist actual does exist.  So for God to grant freewill He had to allow for the existence of sin.  That's the exact opposite of saying that freewill doesn't exist and God predetermines that certain beings would never sin (unfallen angels) and others would (fallen angels and all men).

----------


## jmdrake

> Are you saying that 1 John 2:2 teaches universal salvation?


It clearly teaches universal atonement.  There are many people who believe in universal atonement without believing universal salvation.  You know this so you are not being intellectually honest.  I know SF hates when I call you out on being dishonest but I don't know what else to do when you are making such ridiculous arguments.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It clearly teaches universal atonement.  There are many people who believe in universal atonement without believing universal salvation.  You know this so you are not being intellectually honest.  I know SF hates when I call you out on being dishonest but I don't know what else to do when you are making such ridiculous arguments.


In Romans 8, Paul argues that salvation is secured by claiming that the charges against the elect have been dropped.  He rhetorically asks' "Who can bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies."

When ones sins are atoned for, no one can bring a charge against them.  But you are saying that there are still charges against someone whose sin is atoned for.  Why?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You are limiting freewill to only include making choices that were not sinful.


No I'm not. I'm only assuming that never sinning is compatible with having free will.

Everything I said still stands.

God can create a being with free will who is never going to sin.

He could have created the whole universe, and included beings with free will in it who were never going to sin.

But he chose not to do that. He chose instead to create this universe in which he knew that beings he created were going to sin.

Obviously, no appeal to free will can change that.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> It clearly teaches universal atonement.  There are many people who believe in universal atonement without believing universal salvation.  You know this so you are not being intellectually honest.  I know SF hates when I call you out on being dishonest but I don't know what else to do when you are making such ridiculous arguments.


It seems like you're just using the word "atonement" for something other than salvation. But whatever that might be, it's not mentioned in 1 John 2:2. First John 2:2 doesn't say "atonement." It says "propitiation." But if God no longer has wrath for anyone in the world, then who's left to be unsaved?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> if quantum mechanics multiverse theory is correct, then every choice that could possibly exist actual does exist.


That is not true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually I don't know that. It seems like you're just using the word "atonement" for something other than salvation. But whatever that might be, it's not mentioned in 1 John 2:2. First John 2:2 doesn't say "atonement." It says "propitiation." But if God no longer has wrath for anyone in the world, then who's left to be unsaved?


That's a very good distinction.   Also, In John 1 and Romans 1 it is clear that God has wrath for all mankind.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Dang. You two are just making it up as you go along, huh.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Dang. You two are just making it up as you go along, huh.


Making what up?

Did you disagree with something I said?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Dang. You two are just making it up as you go along, huh.


No.  We are defending the historical Biblical Christian faith against new sci-fi heresies.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No.  We are defending the historical Biblical Christian faith against new sci-fi heresies.


Hm. Odd. You haven't got the Biblical Christian faith right yet as far as I can tell. Actually, most of your rhetoric seems anti-biblical. And I see a good bit of theological snobbery and elitism mixed in there, too. 

erowe1, too. To his credit, though, he isn't as bad as you are.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Hm. Odd. You haven't got the Biblical Christian faith right yet as far as I can tell. Actually, most of your rhetoric seems anti-biblical. And I see a good bit of theological snobbery and elitism mixed in there, too. 
> 
> erowe1, too. To his credit, though, he isn't as bad as you are.


This kind of thing would carry more weight if you could point to something someone said that wasn't biblical.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hm. Odd. You haven't got the Biblical Christian faith right yet as far as I can tell. Actually, most of your rhetoric seems anti-biblical. And I see a good bit of theological snobbery and elitism mixed in there, too. 
> 
> erowe1, too. To his credit, though, he isn't as bad as you are.


What do you dispute that is not Biblical?   You said you aren't a student of the Bible, right?  So why are you saying this?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What do you dispute that is not Biblical?   You said you aren't a student of the Bible, right?  So why are you saying this?


First of all I never once said that I wasn't a student of the Bible. You're projecting. Again. Like you always do whenever you're not playing twenty questions with people as if you're the annointed judge of such things. I likely have more Bibles than you do and spend a great deal of time comparing them. Some of which are several linguistics separated. And that's not even counting pre-Biblical and extra-Biblical texts. That's real Bible study. Much to my own personal sacrifice, I'd add. Unlike what you do. Which is take scripture out of its Biblical context and try to pawn off your own universal meaning to suit your authoritarian, doctrinal superiority complex. You spread false Gospel. Consistently and eagerly. Heck, a lot of the time, you're even making the Arminian case without even realizing it and then you disagree with the Arminian view in the next breath.

Maybe consider putting the Reformed titles down for a while. You're absorbed by your own theological correctness, my friend.  What you're doing is creating a spirit of division among Christians. What you're actively doing is creating the illusion of a more worthy class of Christians through false Gospel. As if there is some worthier-than-thou class of Christians. There isn't. All Christians are saved in Christ because they are of the spiritual nature to receive it. In His Church.

Again...




> *Romans 10:13*
> 
>  for, “*Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord* will be saved.”






> *Revelation 21:6*
>  He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. *To the thirsty I will give* water without cost from the spring of the water of life.






> *Matthew 11:28*
> “*Come to me, all you who are* weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.


 


> *Revelation 5:9*
> 
>  And they sang a new song, saying:“You are worthy to take the scroll 
>  and to open its seals,
>  because you were slain,
>  and *with your blood you purchased for God
>  persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.*






> *Matthew 26:28*This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.




Scripture tells us  that anyone can enter that covenant by becoming a Christian. His Church. "His sheep" (John 10:11)... "His friends" (John 15:13)... "many"(Heb. 9:28). 


That's why I asked you if you considered yourself one of the Elect, S_F. I knew you were going to run away from the question and answer me the way you did. Certainly all christians are elected. But you like to create the illusion of a worthier-than-though class of cchristians t suit your own self-rightous superiority complex, don't you? Sure you do. 

In fact, the only claim I made about myself was that I wasn't so arrogant and self-rightous to take the context out of biblical scripture and turn it into something else and then act like I know everything like some friends we know. Except I didn't so it in so many words. I said I wasn't a Biblical "pro." Right? Of course, it's right. Go look. Don't put words in my mouth. That's something else you do alot, too. 


Back to what Paul was saying, ya tyrant. Paul was talking to born again Roman Christians. Was he not?

----------

