# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:

## Deborah K

Haughtiness
Lying
Murdering
Plotting evil
Eagerness to do wrong
A false witness
Sowing discord among brothers

Proverbs 6: 16-19


...just sayin...

----------


## James Madison

dis gon b gud

----------


## Ronin Truth

Kinda sounds to me like design flaws.  Maybe it was just too much of a rush job.

----------


## Deborah K

> Kinda sounds to me like design flaws.  Maybe it was just too much of a rush job.


Explain.

----------


## otherone

> Explain.


I'm guessin' mankind.....designed to fail.  The second one was even made from parts salvaged from the first....

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Explain.


If your creation doesn't work the way it should and the way you designed/wanted it to, then maybe it should just be back to the drawing board for a correction and improvement do over.

----------


## Deborah K

> If your creation doesn't work the way it should and the way you designed/wanted it to, then maybe it should just be back to the drawing board for a correction and improvement do over.


We were created with free will.  We choose to do the things which God hates.

----------


## PierzStyx

> If your creation doesn't work the way it should and the way you designed/wanted it to, then maybe it should just be back to the drawing board for a correction and improvement do over.


Individual will means having the power to do stupid things. Our ability to be idiots isn't a design flaw, its part of the test and an experience we are meant to have.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> We were created with free will. We choose to do the things which God hates.


Perhaps the free will thing should have been held back until the successful completion of a species beta test.  How about installing the 10 commandments into the **** sapiens firmware?  That would have saved tons of blood and tears.

----------


## Deborah K

> Perhaps the free will thing should have been held back until the successful completion of a species beta test.  How about installing the 10 commandments into the **** sapiens firmware?  That would have saved tons of blood and tears.


Have you ever read the Bible?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We were created with free will.  We choose to do the things which God hates.


This is NO WHERE in the Bible whatsoever.  The word "free will" (to describe the will) is not in the Bible, and the concept is not in the Bible.  This is the popular false gospel of today.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Individual will means having the power to do stupid things. Our ability to be idiots isn't a design flaw, its part of the test and an experience we are meant to have.


Then why even bother to create tests that created idiots can't pass?

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm guessin' mankind.....designed to fail.  The second one was even made from parts salvaged from the first....


Woman was made from the rib of man, from near his heart, to be loved by him, and from under his arm, to be protected by him, from his side, to stand by him as his partner.

----------


## otherone

> This is the popular false gospel of today.


Does it have pictures?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Have you ever read the Bible?


 Yeah, but it was a long long time ago.  I really liked the Jesus part, other stuff was really scary.

----------


## Deborah K

> Then why even bother to create tests that created idiots can't pass?


The idea is that we look out for each other.  We're not so good at it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Woman was made from the rib of man, from near his heart, to be loved by him, and from under his arm, to be protected by him, from his side, to stand by him as his partner.


 Do you have a view and opinion of Lilith?

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, but it was a long long time ago.  I really liked the Jesus part, other stuff was really scary.



What parts scared you?  Do you remember?

----------


## otherone

> Woman was made from the rib of man, from near his heart, to be loved by him, and from under his arm, to be protected by him, from his side, to stand by him as his partner.


awwwwwww

----------


## Deborah K

> Do you have a view and opinion of Lilith?



Bad girl.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The idea is that we look out for each other. We're not so good at it.


 If that was predictable there's yet another preventable design flaw.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Bad girl.


 Design flaw?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does it have pictures?


Oh, sure it does:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-View-Of-Man

----------


## Deborah K

> If that was predictable there's yet another preventable design flaw.


God has a plan for all of us.  It's up to us to rise to the occasion.  He's not a puppet master.

----------


## Deborah K

> Design flaw?


Test.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Test.


 Why would a omniscient omnipotent all seeing creator need to create a test? He certainly knew how it would all turn out from the beginning.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why would a omniscient omnipotent all seeing creator need to create a test? He certainly knew how it would all turn out from the beginning.


Good question.  What the free will compromisers are proposing is irrational.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why would a omniscient omnipotent all seeing creator need to create a test? He certainly knew how it would all turn out from the beginning.


It's for our sake.  So that we can grow and learn.  We're not robots.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> God has a plan for all of us. It's up to us to rise to the occasion. He's not a puppet master.


  Tell that to Satan.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's for our sake. So that we can grow and learn. We're not robots.


And if we don't work out, we get to spend eternity in hell.  Sheesh!  Grading on the curve would probably help a bunch.

----------


## Deborah K

> Tell that to Satan.


I don't follow you. What are you trying to say?

Also, I asked you this earlier:




> What parts scared you?  Do you remember?

----------


## Deborah K

> And if we don't work out, we get to spend eternity in hell.  Sheesh!  Grading on the curve would probably help a bunch.


Faith in God helps a bunch!  We're all sinners.  Every last one of us.  Our faith in him saves us.  And as our faith grows, we learn to take our guidance from him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Faith in God helps a bunch!  We're all sinners.  Every last one of us. * Our faith in him saves us*.  And as our faith grows, we learn to take our guidance from him.


No it does not.  A Christian's faith is only the evidence that he _has been_ saved.  Regeneration precedes faith.  Faith does not save a man, grace does.

----------


## moostraks

> This is NO WHERE in the Bible whatsoever.  The word "free will" (to describe the will) is not in the Bible, and the concept is not in the Bible.  This is the popular false gospel of today.


Early church fathers:




> Ignatius of Antioch (d. 98/117), one of the Apostolic Fathers, affirmed human free will:
> 
> Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God's precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life. For I remark, that two different characters are found among men  the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.  (Letter to the Magnesians  long version, Chapter 5; ANF Vol. I p. 61; emphasis added.)
> 
> The Epistle to Diognetus, considered part of the Apostolic Fathers corpus, affirmed human free will:
> 
> . . . as a king sending a son, he sent him as King, he sent him as God, he sent him as Man to men, he was saving and persuading when he sent him, not compelling, for compulsion is not an attribute of God (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3; Loeb Classical Library Vol. II, p. 365; emphasis added).
> 
> Clement of Rome (fl. c. 90-100) has been cited in support of free will (see Recognitions 9.30).  However, serious concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the Recognitions (Quastens Patrology Vol. I, p. 61-62).
> ...


http://orthodoxbridge.com/calvin-dissing-the-fathers/

Looks like it has been popular for quite some time, unlike your beliefs which are relatively new by comparison, S_F.

----------


## Crashland

> We were created with free will.  We choose to do the things which God hates.


Why create us with free will, and then have the only way to salvation be ultimately God's choice, not ours? I am pretty sure many of you recently have maintained that it requires an act of God for an individual to come to saving faith. Or by grace through faith, however you want to put it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No it does not.  A Christian's faith is only the evidence that he _has been_ saved.  Regeneration precedes faith.  Faith does not save a man, grace does.


Playing devil's advocate here (I actually agree with you) how do you interpret Acts 16:31 in the light of this belief?  It seems at least at first glance that Paul is teaching that belief saves.  At the very least, I don't see how the jailer would have known any different at the moment he was saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is NO WHERE in the Bible whatsoever.  The word "free will" (to describe the will) is not in the Bible, and the concept is not in the Bible.  This is the popular false gospel of today.


I know its not a Biblical terminology, but I don't necessarily think its inaccurate to say we have the free will to do what God hates.  That's the only thing we can do unless God regenerates us.  That's what creatures do when they act in an autonomous fashion, they can only rebel.  That's human nature.  That's Romans 3:10 in action.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Playing devil's advocate here (I actually agree with you) how do you interpret Acts 16:31 in the light of this belief?  It seems at least at first glance that Paul is teaching that belief saves.  At the very least, I don't see how the jailer would have known any different at the moment he was saved.


I guess I don't see where the contention is.  If you believe in the Lord, you will be saved.  This is the way the apostles preached and it is the way we should preach.

----------


## Crashland

> Playing devil's advocate here (I actually agree with you) how do you interpret Acts 16:31 in the light of this belief?  It seems at least at first glance that Paul is teaching that belief saves.  At the very least, I don't see how the jailer would have known any different at the moment he was saved.


My understanding is that grace is the gift of salvation itself, and faith is the means to receive it.

----------


## Nang

> Playing devil's advocate here (I actually agree with you) how do you interpret Acts 16:31 in the light of this belief?  It seems at least at first glance that Paul is teaching that belief saves.  At the very least, I don't see how the jailer would have known any different at the moment he was saved.



S_F posted: "A Christian's faith is only the evidence that he _has been_ saved. Regeneration precedes faith. Faith does not save a man, grace does."

Simply replace the word "faith" with "belief" and you have your answer!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I know its not a Biblical terminology, but I don't necessarily think its inaccurate to say we have the free will to do what God hates.  That's the only thing we can do unless God regenerates us.  That's what creatures do when they act in an autonomous fashion, they can only rebel.  That's human nature.  That's Romans 3:10 in action.


But even the evil of men has been predestined by God and is caused (ultimately) by God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My understanding is that grace is the gift of salvation itself, and faith is the means to receive it.


Correct.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why create us with free will, and then have the only way to salvation be ultimately God's choice, not ours? I am pretty sure many of you recently have maintained that it requires an act of God for an individual to come to saving faith. Or by grace through faith, however you want to put it.


What you're getting to is the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing.  Its really a debate over how predestination and election work together in salvation.  If I recall correctly Deborah K doesn't like to call herself an Arminian but she would lean more in that direction.  Arminians believe in predestination by foreknowledge.  In other words, they say that God chose the people who would choose him in the light of pervenient grace.  By contrast, Calvinists such as myself teach that grace is irresistibly given to God's elect people, and that those people will definitely believe and be saved because God bestowed his grace on them, and his grace is irresistible.  Both sides teach that everyone would reject God if God did not provide grace, but the Arminians say that God gave everybody enough grace that they are able to say yes to God, while Calvinists believe God gave certain people grace so that they will definitely say yes to God.  Either way, God promises to save any who trust in Christ alone to save them, and that is what you are responsible to do regardless of whether God has chosen you or not.

----------


## eduardo89

> This is NO WHERE in the Bible whatsoever.  The word "free will" (to describe the will) is not in the Bible, and the concept is not in the Bible.  This is the popular false gospel of today.


Double predestination and salvation by faith alone aren't found in the Bible, but you believe in those...

----------


## Crashland

> What you're getting to is the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing.  Its really a debate over how predestination and election work together in salvation.  If I recall correctly Deborah K doesn't like to call herself an Arminian but she would lean more in that direction.  Arminians believe in predestination by foreknowledge.  In other words, they say that God chose the people who would choose him in the light of pervenient grace.  By contrast, Calvinists such as myself teach that grace is irresistibly given to God's elect people, and that those people will definitely believe and be saved because God bestowed his grace on them, and his grace is irresistible.  Both sides teach that everyone would reject God if God did not provide grace, but the Arminians say that God gave everybody enough grace that they are able to say yes to God, while Calvinists believe God gave certain people grace so that they will definitely say yes to God.  Either way, God promises to save any who trust in Christ alone to save them, and that is what you are responsible to do regardless of whether God has chosen you or not.


Yes that is an important distinction. I would maintain though that belief is not a choice. You either believe something to be actually true or you don't. Saying you "choose to believe" in something that you don't actually think is true would be intellectually dishonest, not to mention God would be able to see right through that. So I guess I would agree with the Calvinist side of that argument

----------


## Nang

> Double predestination and salvation by faith alone aren't found in the Bible, but you believe in those...


Romans 9:6-23; Romans 3:21-26

(But you knew one of us would post those scriptures, right?)

----------


## Deborah K

> Why create us with free will, and then have the only way to salvation be ultimately God's choice, not ours? I am pretty sure many of you recently have maintained that it requires an act of God for an individual to come to saving faith. Or by grace through faith, however you want to put it.


You're lumping several faiths together.  We're not all in agreement.  I can only speak for myself on this matter.  I don't view our Creator as a puppet master.  We're not programed robots.  He's our Father, we're his children.  I wouldn't want my children to be little programmed robots either. 

In the Bible when God tells us to  "Choose" this implies the concept of "free will".  The words "Trinity" and "Incarnation" are not found in the Bible either but the concept of both of them is found throughout the Bible.

"...Choose today whom you will serve" ...Joshua 24:15 
 "...So choose life in order that you may live."... Deuteronomy 30:19 
 "...Choose good"... Isaiah 7:15 
 "...You did evil in My sight and chose what displeases Me"... 
 Isaiah 65:12 
 "...Choose knowledge rather than gold"... Proverbs 8:10

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess I don't see where the contention is.  If you believe in the Lord, you will be saved.  This is the way the apostles preached and it is the way we should preach.


My issue is less with the doctrine you are teaching (which I have no issue with) and more a question of how you would expect a new Christian to understand it.

If you teach someone that they will be saved if they believe, and they believe your message, they are going to think their faith saved them unless you are more specific than Paul was that that isn't the case.  I understand that Paul wrote a bunch of doctrinal epistles that make these distinctions very clearly, but he wasn't that precise when he was talking to the jailer.  He didn't tell the jailer that he had to believe that his faith was the evidence that he was already saved (which would also be really, really confusing.)



> But even the evil of men has been predestined by God and is caused (ultimately) by God.


I dislike the word "caused" for some reason, though this probably gets back to the whole "author of sin" thing that I don't really want to rehash here (if you really want to ask Bryan to reopen the thread we were already discussing it on and I'll take a stab at it.)  While I think God ordained that evil would occur for his own good purposes (thus, God does "predestine" evil) I don't believe God causes evil.  Rather, I believe that evil is the only thing that man will choose with his "free will."  God either restrains that evil or he doesn't.  He's in complete control the whole time, he can stop the evil at any time he wishes, but he allows just enough of it to accomplish the purpose that he has for it.  But he doesn't cause people to be evil.    Saying God causes people to be evil is almost a denial of total depravity, it makes it out like man is inherently neutral and that God has to actually cause him to be bad... as if he wouldn't be otherwise.

Do you believe in equal ultimacy?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Double predestination and salvation by faith alone aren't found in the Bible, but you believe in those...


Double predestination:




> *Romans 9:21  
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?*



Faith alone:




> *Romans 4:5
> 
> But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness
> *

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Double predestination and salvation by faith alone aren't found in the Bible, but you believe in those...


I don't see how anyone can read Romans 9 and say double predestination "isn't in the Bible."

----------


## Nang

> Yes that is an important distinction. I would maintain though that belief is not a choice. You either believe something to be actually true or you don't. Saying you "choose to believe" in something that you don't actually think is true would be intellectually dishonest, not to mention God would be able to see right through that. So I guess I would agree with the Calvinist side of that argument


The teaching that regeneration precedes faith is crucial to understanding that belief is not a choice. 

Rather, one that has been regenerated, has been given a new spiritual heart and mind, so that when the truth is taught, the* response* IS belief.  And this response lead to faith (trust) in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, rather than trusting in oneself.

 There is no such thing as a person being given a new heart from God, that fails to respond in love to God and place His faith in God.  No such thing, so the matter of exercising human will is totally moot.

----------


## eduardo89

> Double predestination:


This is Paul saying "what if" because God indeed has the power to do that. But these verses do not say God creates people for the purpose of sending them to hell or that He deprives them of any grace to get to heaven.

I made a post about this a while back answering FF



> You need to read that in the context of Jeremiah 18:3-10. God does not say 'I'll choose which vessels to destroy and which to elevate, and I will choose arbitrarily and beyong reproach, because I'm God and I can do whatever I want.' What God is saying to Israel, first through Jeremiah, back when Israel faced the prospect of exile and later on through St. Paul when the destruction of Jerusalem was nearing is very simple. He is saying 'I can make of you a vessel of beauty, or I can make a vessel fit for destruction, and it all depends on whether or not you will hear my voice, repent, and turn from your evil ways.'






> Faith alone:


Again, St. Paul is talking about works of the Law. 

It's incredible how you take snippets from Scripture, distort them, and then ignore the rest just like you ignore James 2.

----------


## Crashland

> The teaching that regeneration precedes faith is crucial to understanding that belief is not a choice.
> 
> Rather, one that has been regenerated, has been given a new spiritual heart and mind, so that when the truth is taught, the response IS belief.  There is no such thing as a person being given a new heart from God, that fails to love God and place His faith in God.  No such thing, so the matter of exercising human will is totally moot.


Exactly. The part that gets me though, is that with that in mind, if you have a situation where there is someone who used to believe in Christianity and no longer does (myself), then the only logical conclusion would be that either they were lying or they somehow never *really* *really* believed. From personal experience I know the first one is not true, and if the second one is true and it is possible to have such a perfect delusion, then there would be no way anyone could know if they are truly saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is Paul saying "what if" because God indeed has the power to do that. But these verses do not say God creates people for the purpose of sending them to hell or that He deprives them of any grace to get to heaven.


Yes the verse does say He does that.  The entire point of Paul bringing this up is to answer the objector who is objecting to God raising up Pharoah and condemning him afterwards.  Read the entire portion together:




> *Romans 9:16-24 
> 
> It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
> 
> One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
> 
> What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?  What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?*











> Again, St. Paul is talking about works of the Law. 
> 
> It's incredible how you take snippets from Scripture, distort them, and then ignore the rest just like you ignore James 2.



Paul is talking about works of the law, yes.  But works of the law include EVERY human work, ceremonial to moral.  This is show in a couple of places in chapter 2 and 3 where Paul talks about the moral requirements of the law.

----------


## Nang

> Exactly. The part that gets me though, is that with that in mind, if you have a situation where there is someone who used to believe in Christianity and no longer does, then the only logical conclusion would be that either they were lying or they somehow never *really* *really* believed. From personal experience I know the first one is not true, and if the second one is true and it is possible to have such a perfect delusion, then there would be no way anyone could know if they are truly saved.


If one has professed faith, but then stops believing, they were never regenerated and changed in heart to begin with.

But those who profess faith, and continue in faith, and evidence faith (love for God and their brethren) . . that soul has been permanently anointed with the Holy Spirit, and He witnesses to our human spirit, and gives GREAT assurance we are adopted sons of God.  (Romans 8:5-17)

I John 2:18-25

----------


## James Madison

> But even the evil of men has been predestined by God and is caused (ultimately) by God.


And here we arrive at the central flaw of hyper-calvinism (or whatever they wish to call themselves). _God_, not Satan, not man, not happenstance, but the perfect, righteous, and merciful God is the source of all evil, all sin, and all vice. _God_ tempts us; _God_ deceives us; _God_ causes our hand to slip, not so that we may be built anew, but because he hates us. He promises to torment us, without end, for eternity because of crimes _He_ has caused us bring forth. This is righteousness? This is justice? This is God?! Then I will follow the words of Christ and cut off that which causes me to sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly. The part that gets me though, is that with that in mind, if you have a situation where there is someone who used to believe in Christianity and no longer does (myself), then the only logical conclusion would be that either they were lying or they somehow never *really* *really* believed. From personal experience I know the first one is not true, and if the second one is true and it is possible to have such a perfect delusion, then there would be no way anyone could know if they are truly saved.


(mod delete) Christian's faith comes from God and is maintained by the Holy Spirit, it is not something that can come and go.  And since (by what you are briefly describing here) you tasted in the heavenly gift and had a kind of understanding of the age to come, and yet you _still_ rejected it, (mod delete)

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't follow you. What are you trying to say?
> 
> Also, I asked you this earlier:


Satan may think the Creator is a puppet master.

*This Land Is Mine (video)*

----------


## Crashland

> If one has professed faith, but then stops believing, they were never regenerated and changed in heart to begin with.
> 
> But those who profess faith, and continue in faith, and evidence faith (love for God and their brethren) . . that soul has been permanently anointed with the Holy Spirit, and He witnesses to our human spirit, and gives GREAT assurance we are adopted sons of God.
> 
> I John 2:18-25


Right - if you stop professing faith, then that is evidence you were not regenerated. But if you profess faith for 50 years...when you are 30 years in you've got some GREAT assurance right? But then at 50 you are convinced otherwise and no longer believe...how would anyone be able to tell the difference when they are at year 30?

----------


## Deborah K

> Satan may think the Creator is a puppet master.
> 
> *This Land Is Mine (video)*


He may indeed.

love the video.  damn!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And here we arrive at the central flaw of hyper-calvinism (or whatever they wish to call themselves). _God_, not Satan, not man, not happenstance, but the perfect, righteous, and merciful God is the source of all evil, all sin, and all vice. _God_ tempts us; _God_ deceives us; _God_ causes our hand to slip, not so that we may be built anew, but because he hates us. He promises to torment us, without end, for eternity because of crimes _He_ has caused us bring forth. This is righteousness? This is justice? This is God?! Then I will follow the words of Christ and cut off that which causes me to sin.


And folks, how many times have we seen this _exact_ objection.   This what Paul answers in Romans 9:16-21 :




> *So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
> 
> For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.” So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
> 
> Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”
> 
> No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?*

----------


## Crashland

> (mod delete) Christian's faith comes from God and is maintained by the Holy Spirit, it is not something that can come and go.  And since (by what you are briefly describing here) you tasted in the heavenly gift and had a kind of understanding of the age to come, and yet you _still_ rejected it, (mod delete)


That's the part I find so offensive -- not at you personally of course, I mean I used to believe the same thing. If I was never actually saved, then I can say that it was 100% compelling at the time and there was never a doubt in my mind that I had a personal relationship with God. Again, if that was all some kind of delusion, it was such a perfect and compelling delusion, that anyone who has that delusion would be completely unable to tell the difference, during the period that they believe, whether they are deluded or not.

I do appreciate your concern

----------


## Sola_Fide

> (mod delete)


Is it troubling to you that you have the same objection to God's sovereignty that Paul scolds a person for having in Romans 9?  I'll let Paul answer your unbelief again:




> 16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
> 
> 17 For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.”
> 
> 18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
> 
> 19 Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”
> 
> 20 No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” 
> ...

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes, you never were a Christian.  Because a Christian's faith comes from God and is maintained by the Holy Spirit, it is not something that can come and go.  And since (by what you are briefly describing here) you tasted in the heavenly gift and had a kind of understanding of the age to come, and yet you _still_ rejected it, you have trampled underfoot the blood of Christ which is a grave, grave thing to do.  I pray for you sir.


This just goes to show how laughable the doctrine of 'once saved, always saved' is. If someone falls away, as the Bible says many will, then you just chalk it up to them 'never really having had faith in the first place.'

----------


## Deborah K

> Haughtiness
> Lying
> Murdering
> Plotting evil
> Eagerness to do wrong
> A false witness
> *Sowing discord among brothers*
> 
> Proverbs 6: 16-19
> ...


Any opinions on this?

----------


## Crashland

> Any opinions on this?


All those things are bad :-P

----------


## Nang

> And here we arrive at the central flaw of hyper-calvinism (or whatever they wish to call themselves). _God_, not Satan, not man, not happenstance, but the perfect, righteous, and merciful God is the source of all evil, all sin, and all vice. _God_ tempts us; _God_ deceives us; _God_ causes our hand to slip, not so that we may be built anew, but because he hates us. He promises to torment us, without end, for eternity because of crimes _He_ has caused us bring forth. This is righteousness? This is justice? This is God?! Then I will follow the words of Christ and cut off that which causes me to sin.


The above is not accurate, for it is not biblical.  And it is much too emotional.  

The purposes of God can only be holy and good, so one is obligated to study and learn God's will. 

God in His foreknowledge, ordained that mankind would fall short of His holiness, but God created the human race anyway, decreeing to save many, through the sacrifice of His Son.

Why create men who would not live up to divine standards?  

Because God cannot be cloned.

It is impossible for God to create an uncreate being.

And it is also impossible for created beings to become God.

The Father, before creation, promised the Son an Eternal Kingdom, filled with brethren who would fellowship with Him and share His glory.  Therefore, creation was necessary in order to bring into existence, those promised to the Son, and within creation, it was necessary the Son perform Covenant with the Father, and redeem these very souls.  *Ephesians 1:3-3-12 is the primary passage to study, to learn God's purposes.*

In order to perform this eternal Covenant in created time, it was necessary the Son Incarnate to became Testator:

"For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.  For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives."   The entire passage: *Hebrews 9:16-28


*

----------


## Deborah K

> All those things are bad :-P


And, what is your opinion about Christians who sow discord among their brethren?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> He may indeed.
> 
> love the video. damn!



Design flaw?

----------


## Crashland

> And, what is your opinion about Christians who sow discord among their brethren?


I don't think it's good for _anyone_ to sow discord among their brethren. Christians who do it might be a bad testament to their faith, but I don't think anyone expects Christians to be perfect

----------


## Deborah K

> That's the part I find so offensive -- not at you personally of course, I mean I used to believe the same thing. If I was never actually saved, then I can say that it was 100% compelling at the time and there was never a doubt in my mind that I had a personal relationship with God. Again, if that was all some kind of delusion, it was such a perfect and compelling delusion, that anyone who has that delusion would be completely unable to tell the difference, during the period that they believe, whether they are deluded or not.
> 
> I do appreciate your concern


What I find offensive, is when people determine that their interpretations of the Bible supersede everyone else's - to the point of arrogantly 'correcting' instead of rendering an opinion on all matters religious.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's the part I find so offensive -- not at you personally of course, I mean I used to believe the same thing. If I was never actually saved, then I can say that it was 100% compelling at the time and there was never a doubt in my mind that I had a personal relationship with God. Again, if that was all some kind of delusion, it was such a perfect and compelling delusion, that anyone who has that delusion would be completely unable to tell the difference, during the period that they believe, whether they are deluded or not.
> 
> I do appreciate your concern


God does send delusions so that men cannot believe the truth, this much is true.  But the thing to understand is that God is perfectly in control of your unbelief right now.  If He wants you to believe, He will raise you to spiritual life and cause you to believe.  If He wants you to continue to be deluded, He has every right to create a pot for destruction, as Romans 9 says.

----------


## Nang

> Right - if you stop professing faith, then that is evidence you were not regenerated. But if you profess faith for 50 years...when you are 30 years in you've got some GREAT assurance right? But then at 50 you are convinced otherwise and no longer believe...how would anyone be able to tell the difference when they are at year 30?


There are multitudes who think they are saved, but who are not.  These deceive themselves and deceive others.  These always ultimately fall into unbelief.

This is the very reason Paul instructs believers to make their calling sure.  For only by devoted study of God's word, can one either be convicted his faith is only a profession, or one can be assured he is truly an adopted son of God.   I John is the most important epistle for any professing believer to read.

It will either convict you of deceiving yourself, or it will bless you with evidence of your election.

----------


## Deborah K

> Design flaw?


It's the price of free will.

----------


## eduardo89

> May God have mercy upon your soul . . .


Well, it depends. Which God are we talking about, (mod delete)

----------


## Deborah K

Haughtiness
 Lying
 Murdering
 Plotting evil
 Eagerness to do wrong
 A false witness
Sowing discord among brothers

 Proverbs 6: 16-19


Are the above choices?  Or does God condemn us to behave this way?

----------


## donnay

> This is NO WHERE in the Bible whatsoever.  The word "free will" (to describe the will) is not in the Bible, and the concept is not in the Bible.  This is the popular false gospel of today.


 John 8:36	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 

Exodus 21:11	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. 

Romans 6:20	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 

Galatians 4:26	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 

Romans 6:18	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 

1 Corinthians 9:19	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 

Galatians 4:31	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 

Job 3:19	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master. 

Psalms 51:12	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. 

Psalms 105:20	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    The king sent and loosed him; even the ruler of the people, and let him go free. 

1 Peter 2:16	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 

Exodus 21:26	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 

Numbers 5:28	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. 

Exodus 21:2	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 

Exodus 21:5	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 

Psalms 88:5	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more: and they are cut off from thy hand. 

Jeremiah 34:9	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. 

Romans 6:22	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 

Galatians 3:28	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 

2 Thessalonians 3:1	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: 

Matthew 15:6	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 

John 8:33	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 

Romans 5:18	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 

Romans 8:2	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 

Colossians 3:11	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. 

Mark 7:11	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 

Acts 22:28	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. 

Ephesians 6:8	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 

1 Chronicles 9:33	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    And these are the singers, chief of the fathers of the Levites, who remaining in the chambers were free: for they were employed in that work day and night. 

Jeremiah 34:10	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
    Now when all the princes, and all the people, which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his manservant, and every one his maidservant, go free, that none should serve themselves of them any more, then they obeyed, and let them go. 

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...free+will&hs=1

----------


## Nang

> Well, it depends. Which God are we talking about, (mod delete)


There is no such thing as a "Reformed God."

There is only the One Sovereign God as revealed in Holy Scripture.

There has always been disagreement between the Romanists and the Protestants.  I believe this discord has Godly purpose, and that He will work even our disagreements, together for good for those who love Him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 8:36	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
>     If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 
> 
> Exodus 21:11	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
>     And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. 
> 
> Romans 6:20	| Read whole chapter	| See verse in context	
>     For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 
> 
> ...



Not a SINGLE one of those verses talk about the will of man.  Not a SINGLE one.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's the price of free will.


  As, it would seem, is the list of human behaviors in the OP.

----------


## James Madison

> And folks, how many times have we seen this _exact_ objection.   This what Paul answers in Romans 9:16-21 :


Then he's wrong. He's wrong. He's wrong. He's wrong. You can bring him to me, sit him down, and I'll tell him to his face that he's wrong.

And for the record, I think this is one of many things lost in translation from the original text, but for the sake of argument...

It's a bad analogy.

We are created in the image of God, not clay, with an immortal soul, not a shelf-life. You do a disservice to man, and more importantly a disservice to God by comparing our relationship to that of a worker and an inanimate object.

----------


## Crashland

> There are multitudes who think they are saved, but who are not.  These deceive themselves and deceive others.  These always ultimately fall into unbelief.
> 
> This is the very reason Paul instructs believers to make their calling sure.  For only by devoted study of God's word, can one either be convicted his faith is only a profession, or one can be assured he is truly an adopted son of God.   I John is the most important epistle for any professing believer to read.
> 
> It will either convict you of deceiving yourself, or it will bless you with evidence of your election.



I find it oddly convenient, or circular, that the way to be sure of your salvation is to keep professing it. I do agree though, that the state of your own belief or your own unbelief, is self-evident.

----------


## eduardo89

> There is no such thing as a "Reformed God."


I agree, the attributes placed on God by those who follow the Reformed faith make Him into a false god, for God is not evil or unjust.




> There is only the One Sovereign God as revealed in Holy Scripture.


I agree. And He is infinitely loving and merciful, and most of all just.




> There has always been disagreement between the Romanists and the Protestants.  I believe this discord has Godly purpose, and that He will work even our disagreements, together for good for those who love Him.


I believe the Reformation was the work of Satan who since the beginning of time has attempted to create discord, disagreement, and hatred between men and to separate them from God.

----------


## Deborah K

> As, it would seem, is the list of human behaviors in the OP.


Yes!!!  +rep

----------


## donnay

> Not a SINGLE one of those verses talk about the will of man.  Not a SINGLE one.


Then you do not understand.  Maybe you should get a *Strong's Concordance* to help with the interpretations.

----------


## phill4paul

These two...

  Murdering
Plotting evil

  They seem subjective. Retribution. Justice. Is killing in the name of justice and plotting to carry it out not allowed?

  Understood that "Thou shalt not kill." Still, if one knows someone to be a killer of other men and man's justice allows it to continue does the Christian God condemn for the balancing of the scales?

----------


## Nang

> Not a SINGLE one of those verses talk about the will of man.  Not a SINGLE one.


Agreed.  Listing lots of verses that use specific words, does not always convey the concept.

The concept of an autonomous (supposedly "free") will is, is not found in Scripture.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And folks, how many times have we seen this _exact_ objection.   This what Paul answers in Romans 9:16-21 :


Let me put it this way, God is the Lord and Maker, and I have no issues with him.  If God wanted to actively cause people to sin, that would be his right.  There's no standard higher than him that could say that would be wrong.  My objection to it is that I don't think it fits with other scriptures, not that I have some right to tell God he's a "tyrant" or whatever.

If someone misunderstood what I believed about predestination, and came to me saying that the God I believe in is a tyrant, I wouldn't correct him on the nuances, I'd ask him who he thinks he is to question God in the first place.  This doesn't mean I actually hold to the exact viewpoint on predestination that the asker accuses me of holding, it just means that I'm unwilling to put God on trial.

The questioner is not sincere.  He's not seeking to believe the full counsel of God through the help of the Holy Spirit.  He's making himself into a god who (in the sinful man's mind) has the right to hold the true God accountable.  I don't think Paul would have responded the same way to a sincere inquirer who wanted to know what scripture says about the issue.




> This is becoming my conclusion.


I thought you were Calvinistic yourself.  Where are you getting this from?




> Any opinions on this?


I think those who sow discord among brothers will be held accountable by God.  But we kind of have to discuss who "brothers" are before doing that.  I don't believe Catholics to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, and so I don't think its sinful of me to tell them to repent and believe the gospel lest they perish.  I tell them that because I have concern for them and don't want them to die believing a lie.  This is not sowing discord among BROTHERS, and Paul was not sowing discord among BROTHERS when he wrote Galatians 1:8.

If I refused to have fellowship with Nang because she believes in paedobaptism while I believe in credobaptism, I would be dividing over a non-essential.  Doing this, or even worse, encouraging others to do likewise, would be sowing discord among BROTHERS, because we believe the same gospel.  Huge difference between that and refusing to fellowship and demanding repentance of those who do not believe the gospel.



> And here we arrive at the central flaw of hyper-calvinism (or whatever they wish to call themselves). _God_, not Satan, not man, not happenstance, but the perfect, righteous, and merciful God is the source of all evil, all sin, and all vice. _God_ tempts us; _God_ deceives us; _God_ causes our hand to slip, not so that we may be built anew, but because he hates us. He promises to torment us, without end, for eternity because of crimes _He_ has caused us bring forth. This is righteousness? This is justice? This is God?! Then I will follow the words of Christ and cut off that which causes me to sin.


More and more I dislike the term "hyper-calvinism."  Its just a cop out to avoid real debate.  There are points on which  I view Sola's theology as extreme (and a lot of points I agree with him on) but I'll have an honest debate on the points I disagree with rather than just playing the name-calling game.  The same goes for people who throw "hypo-calvinist" and "tolerant calvinist" around as slurs, which is no worse.



> Yes, you never were a Christian.  Because a Christian's faith comes from God and is maintained by the Holy Spirit, it is not something that can come and go.  And since (by what you are briefly describing here) you tasted in the heavenly gift and had a kind of understanding of the age to come, and yet you _still_ rejected it, you have trampled underfoot the blood of Christ which is a grave, grave thing to do.  I pray for you sir.


If you're referencing Hebrews 6, I'd be careful here, since Hebrews 6 is (at least if my understanding is correct, which it may not be) describing ONLY reprobate people, not unregenerate elect people.  The fact that someone seemed to be a Christian at one time and now is not is not enough reason to state with certainty that he is in the former category rather than the latter category.






> This is Paul saying "what if" because God indeed has the power to do that. But these verses do not say God creates people for the purpose of sending them to hell or that He deprives them of any grace to get to heaven.
> 
> I made a post about this a while back answering FF


My biggest issue with this is that you say that God would be "tyrannical" if double predestination was true.  That's the biggest issue.  It would be one thing to take this position and then say "you know, I acknowledge God's right to create some for Hell but I don't think he actually does that."  I could at least respectfully disagree with you on that. But to interpret this passage to say that its hypothetical and then saying God is tyrannical if the hypothetical is true completely destroys your interpretation anyway.

----------


## eduardo89

> These two...
> 
>   Murdering
> Plotting evil
> 
>   They seem subjective. Retribution. Justice. Is killing in the name of justice and plotting to carry it out not allowed?
> 
>   Understood that "Thou shalt not kill." Still, if one knows someone to be a killer of other men and man's justice allows it to continue does the Christian God condemn for the balancing of the scales?


Thou shalt not kill should be thou shalt not murder. There is a difference between homicide and murder. Every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder. The commandment is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. There are times when homicide is justifiable, such as in self-defence and as capital punishment.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And if we don't work out, we get to spend eternity in hell.  Sheesh!  Grading on the curve would probably help a bunch.


You have a choice as to whether you want to spend eternity with God.  He's not going to force you.  If you don't want to, then do whatever.  Why would you care?

----------


## Nang

> I find it oddly convenient, or circular, that the way to be sure of your salvation is to keep professing it. I do agree though, that the state of your own belief or your own unbelief, is self-evident.



You are making a point I tried to make earlier . . there is a difference between professing faith, and actually producing a witness of one's faith.

----------


## eduardo89

> My biggest issue with this is that you say that God would be "tyrannical" if double predestination was true.  That's the biggest issue.  It would be one thing to take this position and then say "you know, I acknowledge God's right to create some for Hell but I don't think he actually does that."  I could at least respectfully disagree with you on that. But to interpret this passage to say that its hypothetical and then saying God is tyrannical if the hypothetical is true completely destroys your interpretation anyway.


I wrote to you in another thread a while back on how that verse in Romans 9 should be interpreted but you never replied: 


> You need to read that in the context of Jeremiah 18:3-10. God does not say 'I'll choose which vessels to destroy and which to elevate, and I will choose arbitrarily and beyong reproach, because I'm God and I can do whatever I want.' What God is saying to Israel, first through Jeremiah, back when Israel faced the prospect of exile and later on through St. Paul when the destruction of Jerusalem was nearing is very simple. He is saying 'I can make of you a vessel of beauty, or I can make a vessel fit for destruction, and it all depends on whether or not you will hear my voice, repent, and turn from your evil ways.'

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Agreed.  Listing lots of verses that use specific words, does not always convey the concept.
> 
> The concept of an autonomous (supposedly "free") will is, is not found in Scripture.


OK, when I pointed out on TOL one time that "free will" wasn't a Biblical term, one member (i'll  let you guess who) pointed me to the "free will" offerings in the OT!  Which is absurd, because obviously "free will" just meant  that they weren't compelled by the law, not that free will was actually a concept.

As for the issue at hand, I don't really like the term "free will" but if someone says that people can sin with their free wills, or choose to sin with their free wills, I wouldn't argue with them.  I dislike the term but the point they are getting at is right, God doesn't force people to sin.  How exactly that works together with the absolute sovereignty of God and that God is in control of every event that takes place I don't know for sure, though I can speculate.

----------


## Nang

> Then you do not understand.  Maybe you should get a *Strong's Concordance* to help with the interpretations.



Donnay,

I own and use a Strong's Concordance to learn from the original languages, but Strong's does not teach theology.

Advocating men have an autonomous will, is a theological matter, and Strong's is not going to provide an apologetic, nor a correction.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I wrote to you in another thread a while back on how that verse in Romans 9 should be interpreted but you never replied:


I didn't respond because its so obviously wrong and I feel foolish for even taking the time.  I have better things to be doing.  But just so you can't beat me over the head with this again, this interpretation is completely incompatible with Romans 9:16.  It doesn't "depend" on anything in the sinner.  I really doubt you've even actually read this chapter.  If you have, you read it with blinders on (Mark 4:12) because the refutation to your argument is right there in the text.  I don't know why you need me to tell you what Romans 9 already tells you.

There is nothing in the text that could possibly indicate that being created for destruction depends on the sinner's choices.  And why would the objector even consider objecting to that?  Why would anyone object to the message that God gives everyone grace that they don't deserve and that he'll make vessels of destruction if they don't make the right choices?  Why would the objection even make sense if that's what Paul meant?

----------


## James Madison

> The above is not accurate, for it is not biblical.


Circular argument.




> And it is much too emotional.


What's wrong with being emotional? God created our emotions, but they're bad because...why....? 




> The purposes of God can only be holy and good, so one is obligated to study and learn God's will.


Also circular.




> God in His foreknowledge, ordained that mankind would fall short of His holiness, but God created the human race anyway, decreeing to save many, through the sacrifice of His Son.


Okay. And...




> Why create men who would not live up to divine standards?


The anticipation is killing me....




> Because God cannot be cloned.


God doesn't need to 'clone' anybody to create a world without sin. The bible ends with just this happening; why not skip everything in between and go right to the point where satan is destroyed, blah blah blah -- you know the rest.




> It is impossible for God to create an uncreate being.


What's an 'uncreate being'?




> And it is also impossible for created beings to become God.


I've already explained why they don't need to. See above.




> The Father, before creation, promised the Son an Eternal Kingdom, filled with brethren who would fellowship with Him and share His glory.  Therefore, creation was necessary in order to bring into existence, those promised to the Son, and within creation, it was necessary the Son perform Covenant with the Father, and redeem these very souls.  *Ephesians 1:3-3-12 is the primary passage to study, to learn God's purposes.*


Why not just skip all of this and jump right to the end. No sin, no earth, no crucifixion, just create the followers, create the eternal kingdom, and we're done. No reason to have a despotic solution to a self-invented problem.

God is apparently a fan of Mass Effect 3's ending.

----------


## Nang

> OK, when I pointed out on TOL one time that "free will" wasn't a Biblical term, one member (i'll  let you guess who) pointed me to the "free will" offerings in the OT!  Which is absurd, because obviously "free will" just meant  that they weren't compelled by the law, not that free will was actually a concept.
> 
> As for the issue at hand, I don't really like the term "free will" but if someone says that people can sin with their free wills, or choose to sin with their free wills, I wouldn't argue with them.  I dislike the term but the point they are getting at is right, God doesn't force people to sin.  How exactly that works together with the absolute sovereignty of God and that God is in control of every event that takes place I don't know for sure, though I can speculate.


Having one's will being held in bondage to serving sin, death, and the devil, can hardly be described as "free!"

That is why I do not like the term.

----------


## Crashland

> You are making a point I tried to make earlier . . there is a difference between professing faith, and actually producing a witness of one's faith.


Wrong word choice on my part. You are right producing a witness is more than just claiming to be a Christian. I was thinking more the profession of faith plus fruit of the spirit, or good works which are the evidence.

----------


## eduardo89

> I didn't respond because its so obviously wrong and I feel foolish for even taking the time.  I have better things to be doing.  But just so you can't beat me over the head with this again, this interpretation is completely incompatible with Romans 9:16.  It doesn't "depend" on anything in the sinner.  I really doubt you've even actually read this chapter.  If you have, you read it with blinders on (Mark 4:12) because the refutation to your argument is right there in the text.  I don't know why you need me to tell you what Romans 9 already tells you.
> 
> There is nothing in the text that could possibly indicate that being created for destruction depends on the sinner's choices.  And why would the objector even consider objecting to that?  Why would anyone object to the message that God gives everyone grace that they don't deserve and that he'll make vessels of destruction if they don't make the right choices?  Why would the objection even make sense if that's what Paul meant?


God tells us that the kind of potter He is relates to the obedience of the "clay" in question. He does not forge persons to do evil without ever giving them the grace to turn to Him. Rather God chooses to form the obedient into good vessels but leaves the disobedient to their own wills. Either way, He is totally in charge because as the giver of life, He can have any reason to build up or destroy any one He wants. He simply chooses to build up those who join Him in love.

The key verse is: [8] This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

Paul is telling us that being a physical descendant of Israel was never enough to please God and he goes on to give his readers examples that make his point.

Paul does not say that God loved Jacob and hated Esau without knowing them, which is what is implied by saying "before their birth". God knows each of us through and through from all eternity. Does he prevent people from being born if they aren't going to do as he wills? No. Why? Because he has left conceiving and birthing our young up to us. He simply knows, not determines, who will do what/will conform to his will and who won't. He didn't make Esau sell his birthright to Jacob. Esau made that decision and God held him to it.

God makes good comes from evil. He uses our bad decisions and flaws and fallen nature to bring about his will even though he would much rather we didn't sin. Because he does this doesn't mean he causes men to sin. That is what Paul is saying.

If Paul meant that God specially creates people for damnation, then Paul could not also say:



> This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, *who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.*

----------


## Deborah K

> These two...
> 
>   Murdering
> Plotting evil
> 
>   They seem subjective. Retribution. Justice. Is killing in the name of justice and plotting to carry it out not allowed?
> 
>   Understood that "Thou shalt not kill." Still, if one knows someone to be a killer of other men and man's justice allows it to continue does the Christian God condemn for the balancing of the scales?


I don't think retribution and justice can be considered the same thing as evil plotting and murder.  Especially not in the case of defending one's life, or liberty.

----------


## Nang

> Why not just skip all of this and jump right to the end. No sin, no earth, no crucifixion, just create the followers, create the eternal kingdom, and we're done. No reason to have a despotic solution to a self-invented problem.


Because then God would be creating a heavenly realm, where created beings cannot exist.  You must be God to live in the heavenlies.

Created beings had to be made fit to inherit and share heaven with the Lord . . through His intercession, Mediation, death, and resurrection.  There was no other way for humans to have access to heaven.  Jesus Christ descended from heaven, fulfilled all righteousness, worked our Justification by the offering of His life for ours, and ascended back to heaven, promising we would be raised THROUGH faith in Him, to everlasting life.  He is our access to glory!  No other way.  I Corinthians 15:48-57

----------


## phill4paul

> Thou shalt not kill should be thou shalt not murder. There is a difference between homicide and murder. Every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder. The commandment is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. There are times when homicide is justifiable, such as in self-defence and as capital punishment.


  OK. So self-defense. Meaning immediate threat. Capital Punishment. State sanctioned.

  So, if one were to know that someone was a child molester. This molester had political ties so the state was not a recourse for justice. What then? Would God sanctify an individual that plotted for the killing of said individual?

----------


## Nang

> Wrong word choice on my part. You are right producing a witness is more than just claiming to be a Christian. I was thinking more the profession of faith plus fruit of the spirit, or good works which are the evidence.


Agreed.  It is the Holy Spirit bearing His fruits through those He anoints and indwells, that witnesses to the world, and to us, that we are indeed sons of God.

However, the big problem is, good works can be faked . . . and therein rests the problem.

Hypocrisy can be a killer.

This is why Scripture says over and over, the elect of God will ENDURE and OVERCOME, because God Himself will cause them to persevere, for He will preserve them.

----------


## donnay

> Donnay,
> 
> I own and use a Strong's Concordance to learn from the original languages, but Strong's does not teach theology.
> 
> Advocating men have an autonomous will, is a theological matter, and Strong's is not going to provide an apologetic, nor a correction.



Of course Strong's does not teach theology.  Is a tool for Bible studies so you can discern and understand words used that are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Free will is nothing more than the choices you make.

----------


## William Tell

> Any opinions on this?


Well, if you decide certain folks are not your brothers, that's a way around it. Old trick.

----------


## Nang

> Of course Strong's does not teach theology.  Is a tool for Bible studies so you can discern and understand words used that are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
> 
> Free will is nothing more than the choices you make.


The choices any person makes, depends upon which master he serves.  

Those outside of faith in Christ, serve the devil, and only choose to sin.

Those in Christ, by faith, willingly serve Him and His righteousness.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Having one's will being held in bondage to serving sin, death, and the devil, can hardly be described as "free!"
> 
> That is why I do not like the term.


I agree with you.  Its one of those things where people try to take an expression that doesn't really make sense and put the best possible spin on it.  I've seen that done with that awful "Saint" Francis of Assisi quote about preaching the gospel without words recently.




> God tells us that the kind of potter He is relates to the obedience of the "clay" in question. He does not forge persons to do evil without ever giving them the grace to turn to Him. Rather God chooses to form the obedient into good vessels but leaves the disobedient to their own wills. Either way, He is totally in charge because as the giver of life, He can have any reason to build up or destroy any one He wants. He simply chooses to build up those who join Him in love.
> 
> The key verse is: [8] This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
> 
> Paul is telling us that being a physical descendant of Israel was never enough to please God and he goes on to give his readers examples that make his point.
> 
> Paul does not say that God loved Jacob and hated Esau without knowing them, which is what is implied by saying "before their birth". God knows each of us through and through from all eternity. Does he prevent people from being born if they aren't going to do as he wills? No. Why? Because he has left conceiving and birthing our young up to us. He simply knows, not determines, who will do what/will conform to his will and who won't. He didn't make Esau sell his birthright to Jacob. Esau made that decision and God held him to it.
> 
> God makes good comes from evil. He uses our bad decisions and flaws and fallen nature to bring about his will even though he would much rather we didn't sin. Because he does this doesn't mean he causes men to sin. That is what Paul is saying.
> ...



OK, let me clarify.  You're confusing double predestination with equal ultimacy.  The doctrine that God actually implants evil thoughts into the hearts of the reprobate, and that he actually causes/forces them to sin is "equal ultimacy."  Sola seems to be hinting at something like that, but I don't agree with that.  Sinners choose to sin.  I agree.  

However, God does NOT give salvific grace to everyone.  Only his people.  The rest he leaves to their sinful, destructive thoughts, which is all that a person can do in the absence of God's infallible, irresistible grace.  God hardened Pharaoh's heart by withdrawing his grace from Pharaoh.  God "raised him up" by putting him in the position where he could do great sin, and then God pulled back and allowed Pharaoh to do what he wanted to do anyway, all along restraining Pharaoh from doing worse than that which God planned from before the foundation of the world that he would do.

Basically, it works like this (IMO)

1. Sinners choose to sin

2. Sinners do not choose to do what is good.

3. God CAUSES some sinners to have new hearts that they might believe in Jesus Christ.

4. God PREDESTINES the sins of the reprobate and is in complete control of what they are because God withdraws grace from their hearts as needed so that these sinners might fulfill his plan and bring about the good result that God desires.

5. God doesn't work these wicked thoughts into their hearts, rather, these wicked thoughts were in their hearts since creation, God simply withdraws his grace from these sinners sufficiently that they will choose to do the evil that God predestined will occur.

6. God doesn't force the reprobate to refuse to believe, rather, he doesn't give them the grace to want to believe, and so they choose to reject him, yet God predestined their unbelief at the same time.

I don't believe that passage you quote means every single person without exception.



> OK. So self-defense. Meaning immediate threat. Capital Punishment. State sanctioned.
> 
>   So, if one were to know that someone was a child molester. This molester had political ties so the state was not a recourse for justice. What then? Would God sanctify an individual that plotted for the killing of said individual?


This is a good question.  I'm curious what SF thinks about this scenario.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, if you decide certain folks are not your brothers, that's a way around it. Old trick.


Do you fellowship with Buddhists?  If you do than John 3:18 has words for you.  If you don't then you are determining certain people not to be your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I don't claim to have the definitive answer on where the line is, and I try to stay on the careful side, but you have to draw a line somewhere.  Otherwise you couldn't tell a Muslim or Buddhist that he needs to repent and believe in Jesus Christ to avoid damnation, lest you "sow discord among the brothers."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Free will is nothing more than the choices you make.


Then the will is not free.  Man's will is dead in sin.  Man's choice is always sin.

----------


## Theocrat

> I have no objections to God's sovereignty. I object to your god's (mod delete) ways.


I would be careful using those adjectives to God, Eduardo. The reason I say that is because of Genesis 22:1-2, where it states:




> And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt [test] Abraham, and said unto him, "Abraham." And he said, "Behold, here I am." And He said, "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."


Was God being sadistic, unjust, or cruel by telling Abraham to sacrifice is beloved son, or was God showing us a picture of something else, which would point to God's only begotten Son, centuries later?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Basically, it works like this (IMO)
> 
> 1. Sinners choose to sin
> 
> 2. Sinners do not choose to do what is good.
> 
> 3. God CAUSES some sinners to have new hearts that they might believe in Jesus Christ.
> 
> 4. God PREDESTINES the sins of the reprobate and is in complete control of what they are because God withdraws grace from their hearts as needed so that these sinners might fulfill his plan and bring about the good result that God desires.
> ...



How is God's predestination any different at all than Him causing something to happen?

----------


## William Tell

> Do you fellowship with Buddhists?  If you do than John 3:18 has words for you.  If you don't then you are determining certain people not to be your brothers and sisters in Christ.


 Don't worry man, I don't know any Buddhists.

----------


## Crashland

> How is God's predestination any different at all than Him causing something to happen?


If God is all-powerful there cannot be anything that he does not control, including our choices. It's like asking if God can create an object so heavy he can't lift it. He can't because it would be contrary to the definition of God. So also creating us with true free will would mean God has created something that he does not control, which is contrary to God's nature. I would conclude that we only have the illusion of free will.

----------


## kathy88

> I think those who sow discord among brothers will be held accountable by God.  But we kind of have to discuss who "brothers" are before doing that.  *I don't believe Catholics to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, and so I don't think its sinful of me to tell them to repent and believe the gospel lest they perish.*  I tell them that because I have concern for them and don't want them to die believing a lie.  This is not sowing discord among BROTHERS, and Paul was not sowing discord among BROTHERS when he wrote Galatians 1:8.


So... you can continually bash Catholicism and tell us we are all going to hell and that is not sowing discord because we are not children in Christ, or at least one of us isn't? Have I got this straight?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If God is all-powerful there cannot be anything that he does not control, including our choices. It's like asking if God can create an object so heavy he can't lift it. He can't because it would be contrary to the definition of God. So also creating us with true free will would mean God has created something that he does not control, which is contrary to God's nature. I would conclude that we only have the illusion of free will.


It's not an illusion for me.  I know (because I believe the Scriptures) that God works all things (even the bad things) together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.  I know that even though the wicked may prosper in this life, their prosperity will witness against them in the Judgement. Predestination and election are foundations for a rock-solid faith that endures through even the harshest of trials.

----------


## Crashland

> So... you can continually bash Catholicism and tell us we are all going to hell and that is not sowing discord because we are not children in Christ, or at least one of us isn't? Have I got this straight?


Is there any evidence that the "brethren" in this passage only means fellow believers? King James has "brethren", NIV has "community". I'm not familiar with the hebrew, but if it does just mean "community", when why would it be OK to preach this to non-believers, but not for a Christian to tell a possible fellow Christian?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So... you can continually bash Catholicism and tell us we are all going to hell and that is not sowing discord because we are not children in Christ, or at least one of us isn't? Have I got this straight?


Why don't you accept that Christians are trying to evangelize you because you do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ?

----------


## donnay

> Then the will is not free.  Man's will is dead in sin.  Man's choice is always sin.


It is free will to choose.  You can choose God or you can choose Satan.  God does not make you do anything just like Satan doesn't make you do anything.  You should know right from wrong, as an adult.  You, alone will be held responsible for the things you do...you will however, be judged by God.

----------


## kathy88

> Is there any evidence that the "brethren" in this passage only means fellow believers? King James has "brethren", NIV has "community". I'm not familiar with the hebrew, but if it does just mean "community", when why would it be OK to preach this to non-believers, but not for a Christian to tell a possible fellow Christian?


Apparently Catholics are the unwashed masses unworthy of salvation, I guess.

----------


## Crashland

> It's not an illusion for me.  I know (because I believe the Scriptures) that God works all things (even the bad things) together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.  I know that even though the wicked may prosper in this life, their prosperity will witness against them in the Judgement. Predestination and election are foundations for a rock-solid faith that endures through even the harshest of trials.


I would have felt and said the exact same thing at the time I believed. Just saying...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is free will to choose.  You can choose God or you can choose Satan.  God does not make you do anything just like Satan doesn't make you do anything.  You should know right from wrong, as an adult.  You, alone will be held responsible for the things you do...you will however, be judged by God.


The Bible says that man's will is dead in sin, and a natural man cannot please God or submit to God's law in any way.  Why don't you believe this?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So... you can continually bash Catholicism and tell us we are all going to hell and that is not sowing discord because we are not children in Christ, or at least one of us isn't? Have I got this straight?


I have no right to tell you you're going to Hell and I would never say such a thing.  If I have ever said such a thing, I slipped.  Call me out on it.  I'll repent.  I have no right to say anything like that. 

I have said that everyone who believes in salvation by works to any degree (which includes a combination of faith and works) is not saved.  But I don't know what anyone's eternal destiny is.  I believe baptismal regenerationists are unsaved and not my brothers, but God may save a given person who believes that, and he does save people who believe that.  In fact, I once believed in salvation by a combination of faith and works as well.  Does this mean that I believe I'm going to Hell?  Of course not.  I would say that God SAVED me from that wicked, self-righteous belief system and CAUSED me to believe the truth.  And he could do it for any or all of you as well.  Praise God.

Now, I do not believe that my refusal to fellowship with Roman Catholics or consider them to be Christians is divisive or sowing discord among brothers, because I believe Roman Catholics (as a group, not necessarily every single person who calls themselves that) believes in one or more damnable heresies.  In order to accuse me of sowing discord among brothers, we first have to define what a "brother" is.  Belief in the true gospel is an essential component of being a brother.

Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean I have a right to be mean or insulting toward people who I don't consider to be my brothers.  It does mean that if they are offended by THE GOSPEL that I am not doing wrong.  Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword.  Did he mean a literal sword?  Of course not.  He was saying that the true gospel divides people because its offensive.  Telling someone that nothing they do is good and that unless they trust in Christ alone to save them that they will go to Hell is offensive, and it angers a lot of people.  However, it must be taught because it is Biblical.  I can know that someone has yet to trust in Christ based on what they say they believe, but I do not know whether any given person will ultimately believe and be saved or not.  That I leave up to God.

----------


## eduardo89

> Why don't you accept that Christians are trying to evangelize you because you do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ?


hahahahahaha

----------


## James Madison

> Apparently Catholics are the unwashed masses unworthy of salvation, I guess.


Christianity is more fun when it's a super-secret club.

We aren't allowed in, I guess.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Apparently Catholics are the unwashed masses unworthy of salvation, I guess.


NOBODY is "worthy" of salvation.  That's not the issue at all.  The issue is whether a belief in the imputation of Christ's righteousness is something that everyone who has the imputed righteousness of Christ has.  I say that it is.  Christ's righteousness is alien to me, it comes from outside me.  I am NOT worthy of it.  However, God promises me that since I believe in Christ's imputed righteousness that I have Christ's imputed righteousness, even though I don't deserve it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> hahahahahaha


Quit laughing and heed what he's telling you before its too late.  Your soul is at stake here.

Romans 4:5, Romans 1:16-17, Galatians 1:8-9 (I know we've been over these things already, I'm just posting in case anyone else wants something to think about and so I can say I presented proof of some kind lest the mods say I make unsupported presumptions.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't forget -- not only that Ed isn't a Christian, but he was never a Christian and if he believes he is, he is obviously deceiving himself
> 
> /no offense ed :-P


The sad part is that you're joking but you're actually saying something that is true while thinking you are just joking.  Sad.

----------


## kathy88

> I have no right to tell you you're going to Hell and I would never say such a thing.  If I have ever said such a thing, I slipped.  Call me out on it.  I'll repent.  I have no right to say anything like that. 
> 
> I have said that everyone who believes in salvation by works to any degree (which includes a combination of faith and works) is not saved.  But I don't know what anyone's eternal destiny is.  I believe baptismal regenerationists are unsaved and not my brothers, but God may save a given person who believes that, and he does save people who believe that.  In fact, I once believed in salvation by a combination of faith and works as well.  Does this mean that I believe I'm going to Hell?  Of course not.  I would say that God SAVED me from that wicked, self-righteous belief system and CAUSED me to believe the truth.  And he could do it for any or all of you as well.  Praise God.
> 
> Now, I do not believe that my refusal to fellowship with Roman Catholics or consider them to be Christians is divisive or sowing discord among brothers, because I believe Roman Catholics (as a group, not necessarily every single person who calls themselves that) believes in one or more damnable heresies.  In order to accuse me of sowing discord among brothers, we first have to define what a "brother" is.  Belief in the true gospel is an essential component of being a brother.
> 
> Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean I have a right to be mean or insulting toward people who I don't consider to be my brothers.  It does mean that if they are offended by THE GOSPEL that I am not doing wrong.  Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword.  Did he mean a literal sword?  Of course not.  He was saying that the true gospel divides people because its offensive.  Telling someone that nothing they do is good and that unless they trust in Christ alone to save them that they will go to Hell is offensive, and it angers a lot of people.  However, it must be taught because it is Biblical.  I can know that someone has yet to trust in Christ based on what they say they believe, but I do not know whether any given person will ultimately believe and be saved or not.  That I leave up to God.


If you don't believe in Salvation by works, why do you spend 4 or 5 hours a day on this website trying to "save" people?

----------


## William Tell

> In order to accuse me of sowing discord among brothers, we first have to define what a "brother" is.  Belief in the true gospel is an essential component of being a brother.


Kinda' like that dude who asked Jesus who his neighbor was?

----------


## Crashland

> The sad part is that you're joking but you're actually saying something that is true while thinking you are just joking.  Sad.


Do Catholics not trust in God's gift of salvation?

...can of worms = OPEN!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you don't believe in Salvation by works, why do you spend 4 or 5 hours a day on this website trying to "save" people?


I don't.  I spend time here trying to persuade people to believe the gospel, yes.  But I'm not trying to "save" anybody.  Only God can do that.  God USES the means of gospel preaching as a means through which to bring about belief in the minds of his people.  Only God knows who is and is not his elect, I don't.  Spurgeon once said that if all the elect had a yellow stripe on their backs, that he would preach to those people exclusively.  But obviously no such thing exists.  The ONLY sign that someone is elect is that they are resting in Christ's work on the cross and imputed righteousness alone to save them.  If someone has this, they are saved.  If someone does not have this, we don't know if they are elect or not, and so we preach the gospel to them in hopes that they will believe and show themselves to be of the elect.

"deserving" has nothing to do with this.  I don't deserve salvation, I deserve Hellfire.  I won't go there because God chose to save me, apart from  any merit in me.  How dare I boast in anything but what HE did?

----------


## Crashland

> Kinda' like that dude who asked Jesus who his neighbor was?


+rep

----------


## donnay

> The Bible says that man's will is dead in sin, and a natural man cannot please God or submit to God's law in any way.  Why don't you believe this?


Because you are taking verses out of context. 

1 John Chapter 2

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. *And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
*
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, [even] eternal life.

26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

----------


## phill4paul

Nice to see Theo back again. Maybe he will advocate the execution of non-repentant gays again.

  Religion forums....just....lol. 

  And Christians wonder why I just can't get on board with their theology.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Kinda' like that dude who asked Jesus who his neighbor was?


I'm not denying that we are to be kind and compassionate to all.  But preaching the gospel to unbelievers is not sowing discord among brothers.  It cannot be because otherwise scripture would contradict itself.  Brothers are those who trust in Christ's death on the cross and imputed righteousness alone for their salvation.  Sowing discord among such people over secondary matters is seriously sinful. I've seen people try to tear churches apart because they were so convinced that their view of eschatology was right, and they allowed that to get in the way of the fellowship they should have had with their brothers and sisters in Christ.  THAT is sowing discord among the brothers.  Separating over gospel matters is not.



> Do Catholics not trust in God's gift of salvation?
> 
> ...can of worms = OPEN!


This is a good question.  I wish more people would ask this rather than just attacking us.

If we're gong by the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, no, they don't.  They believe in infused righteousness rather than imputed righteousness.  They think they are saved by a righteousness God works into their hearts rather than a righteousness that comes completely outside themselves.  They believe that justification is not guaranteed until the moment of death.  They believe sacraments such as baptism confer grace and assist in salvation.  These things are not trusting in Christ alone to save them, and it is a false view of the gospel.  While it may seem subtle, it is damnable, much like the Galatian Judaizers who said they trusted in Christ and yet added circumcision to the gospel were not saved.

Now, there are people in the Catholic Church who don't necessarily believe everything Rome teaches.  It may be more case by case when it comes to these people.  While I have a hard time imagining a true Christian staying in a place that does not have the true gospel for long, it could happen, especially if the priest didn't agree with or didn't teach the official Catholic views either.  I won't make an absolute statement that the Catholic Church has no Christians in it.  But the official doctrine of the church is absolutely not Christian, based on the above reasons.

----------


## eduardo89

> Quit laughing and heed what he's telling you before its too late.  Your soul is at stake here.


Exactly, my soul is at stake. That's why I will not follow the Church of Sola, but rather the Church Christ founded. Thank you for your concern, though.




> Romans 4:5,


I agree, works of the Law will not save me.




> Romans 1:16-17,


In these verses Paul says justification comes from faith in Christ, and not from the works of the Law. I agree.




> Galatians 1:8-9 (I know we've been over these things already, I'm just posting in case anyone else wants something to think about and so I can say I presented proof of some kind lest the mods say I make unsupported presumptions.)


You have an obsession with using those verses to condemn others, but in the end what you claim to be the 'true gospel' is simply your personal opinion with nothing other than your personal interpretation to of Scripture to back it up. It's a move you go to in virtually every thread, but using that verse is absolutely no proof.

All you're saying by quoting that verse is "Those who believe a false gospel are condemned, you don't believe my personal opinion based on my private interoperation of Scripture, therefore you are condemned." 

This is basically a summary of every time you use those verses to justify your position:


> You fear Hell for yourself?  This is just evidence for me that that is the road in which you are on.  You are absolutely right to be afraid, eduardo.  You are an  unregenerate man, you do not seek after God, your deeds are evil, and if you died as of right now, believing in your blapshemous Catholicism, you would absolutely go to Hell.  Paul makes this very, very clear in Galatians 1:8-9.


But you don't even take that verse in the correct context.

Read the whole passage:



> 6I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
> 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
> 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
> 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...01&version=DRA


St. Paul is telling them he teaches with authority (the Church's Magisterium) and that other teachings or interpretations that conflict with what he has taught are forbidden.

The "individual Christian" is not to place himself above the Lord's Apostles, and if any do, "let that one be anathema!"

This point is again repeated in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Church has the authority, not any one human. That is Paul's message. He is saying to beware of those who stray from the Church's gospel to some other gospel.

This echoes what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 16:18-19. Whatever the Church binds and looses here on earth is how it is in heaven, meaning that the Church has the authority, not man. The Spirit guides the teaching of the Church. The Truth is revealed to man and handed down by man.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nice to see Theo back again. Maybe he will advocate the execution of non-repentant gays again.
> 
>   Religion forums....just....lol. 
> 
>   And Christians wonder why I just can't get on board with their theology.


Does Theo believe that?  I'd be more than happy to debate him on that topic if he does.  That's a repulsive viewpoint, and completely anti-freedom and anti-Christian.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Sola and FF are in rare form toady...epic trollery is epic.

----------


## Nang

> Because you are taking verses out of context. 
> 
> 1 John Chapter 2
> 
> 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. *And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
> *
> 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
> 
> 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
> ...


What?  You are responding to a quote that contained no verses.

So what was said that is "out of context?"

Then you quote I John 2.

So?

What is your message?

----------


## Theocrat

I am a Protestant, but I respectfully disagree with Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic about Roman Catholics not being my brothers in the Faith. I do not agree with much of Roman Catholic theology, but I do acknowledge that they are trusting in Christ, based on their testimonies and their zeal to love God as best as they can, in accordance with the Scriptures (whether I have disagreements with them or not on certain passages).

I know of many Calvinists who I would say are worse Christians than some Roman Catholics, because those Calvinists are rude, belligerent, disrespectful, proud, arrogant, and condescending on lots of people, Christians and non-Christian alike. Yet, those same Calvinists can cite the Westminster standards, know where key "Reformed" passages are in Scripture, give an outstanding, "credible" profession of their faith, but there is so much hatred in their heart that you can see it in their eyes when they speak. So, if I used the standard of my Calvinist brethren on these boards towards the aforementioned ones in my post, then I would have to conclude that some Calvinists aren't even saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Exactly, my soul is at stake. That's why I will not follow the Church of Sola, but rather the Church Christ founded. Thank you for your concern, though.


I'm not telling you to join the "Church of Sola".  I'm not even telling you to accept all of his theology (I don't accept all of it either.)  I'm just telling you to stop believing in a synergistic gospel and accept the true, monergistic gospel.  Turning that into a matter of "Church of Sola" is a red herring.



> I agree, works of the Law will not save me.
> 
> 
> In these verses Paul says justification comes from faith in Christ, and not from the works of the Law. I agree.
> 
> 
> You have an obsession with using those verses to condemn others, but in the end what you claim to be the 'true gospel' is simply your personal opinion with nothing other than your personal interpretation to of Scripture to back it up. It's a move you go to in virtually every thread, but using that verse is absolutely no proof.
> 
> All you're saying by quoting that verse is "Those who believe a false gospel are condemned, you don't believe my personal opinion based on my private interoperation of Scripture, therefore you are condemned." 
> ...


The church is made up of men.  And Galatians 1:6-9 says nothing about the church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola and FF are in rare form toady...epic trollery is epic.





> I am a Protestant, but I respectfully disagree with Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic about Roman Catholics not being my brothers in the Faith. I do not agree with much of Roman Catholic theology, but I do acknowledge that they are trusting in Christ, based on their testimonies and their zeal to love God as best as they can, in accordance with the Scriptures (whether I have disagreements with them or not on certain passages).
> 
> I know of many Calvinists who I would say are worse Christians than some Roman Catholics, because those Calvinists are rude, belligerent, disrespectful, proud, arrogant, and condescending on lots of people, Christians and non-Christian alike. Yet, those same Calvinists can cite the Westminster standards, know where key "Reformed" passages are in Scripture, give an outstanding, "credible" profession of their faith, but there is so much hatred in their heart that you can see it in their eyes when they speak. So, if I used the standard of my Calvinist brethren on these boards towards the aforementioned ones in my post, then I would have to conclude that some Calvinists aren't even saved.


Who says all Calvinists are saved?  I can't think of any good reason to say that, can you?

I completely disagree with the rest of this post, with all due respect.  Man judges on outward appearances, but God judges based on the heart.  You can't just see that someone seems to be trying or sincere and so judge him saved.  There are many sincere people who are not saved.  I will never call someone saved unless he believes the gospel.  I don't see how you can possibly say Roman Catholics believe in the same gospel we do.

Honestly, I thought the Arminian debate was grayer and more iffy.  Roman Catholics don't even believe anything close to what we believe, by their own admission.

----------


## acptulsa

> In order to accuse me of sowing discord among brothers, we first have to define what a "brother" is.


I believe Jesus made that pretty clear.




> Belief in the true gospel is an essential component of being a brother.


I think someone's about to start arguing with Jesus again.




> Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword.


Yeah, thought so.




> (Luke 9:56) For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The fact that you think you'll ever bring anyone to Christ with you 'evangelisation.'
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I don't give a $#@! what you think.



Does that kind of language and anger come from a spirit of holiness?  I think not.  

A Christian's job isn't to try to trick people into believing the gospel with cunning words.  I just must give an answer for the hope that I have, and God does the regenerating.

----------


## Theocrat

> Who says all Calvinists are saved?  I can't think of any good reason to say that, can you?
> 
> I completely disagree with the rest of this post, with all due respect.  Man judges on outward appearances, but God judges based on the heart.  You can't just see that someone seems to be trying or sincere and so judge him saved.  There are many sincere people who are not saved.  I will never call someone saved unless he believes the gospel.  I don't see how you can possibly say Roman Catholics believe in the same gospel we do.
> 
> Honestly, I thought the Arminian debate was grayer and more iffy.  Roman Catholics don't even believe anything close to what we believe, by their own admission.


Okay, then, FreedomFanatic. Let's do a test. I'm going to cite 1 Corinthians 15, and ask all of the Roman Catholics on here if they disagree with Paul's summation of the Gospel. Here it is:




> For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. [vv. 3-8]


*Are there any Roman Catholics here who disagree with Paul's proclamation of the Gospel there?*

----------


## Crashland

> Haughtiness
> Lying
> Murdering
> Plotting evil
> Eagerness to do wrong
> A false witness
> Sowing discord among brothers
> 
> Proverbs 6: 16-19
> ...


Are we like, trying to hit all of these? I'll try to leave before the murdering part starts.

----------


## eduardo89

> *Are there any Roman Catholics here who disagree with Paul's proclamation of the Gospel there?*


No, we agree with every last word St. Paul wrote.

----------


## acptulsa

> Are we like, trying to hit all of these? I'll try to leave before the murdering part starts.


Better hurry.  That seems to be what we're down to.

----------


## kathy88

> Okay, then, FreedomFanatic. Let's do a test. I'm going to cite 1 Corinthians 15, and ask all of the Roman Catholics on here if they disagree with Paul's summation of the Gospel. Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are there any Roman Catholics here who disagree with Paul's proclamation of the Gospel there?*


Nope. Not this one.

----------


## otherone

> Haughtiness
> Lying
> Murdering
> Plotting evil
> Eagerness to do wrong
> A false witness
> Sowing discord among brothers
> 
> Proverbs 6: 16-19
> ...


Does God get pissed if ANYONE does this stuff, or just Christians?  I mean, how can he get upset with people he already is going to torture for eternity?.

----------


## Theocrat

> Who says all Calvinists are saved?  I can't think of any good reason to say that, can you?


My point is we Calvinists believe that we teach and hold to the Gospel, in its most faithful form, and yet, you can acknowledge that even having the right view of the Gospel doesn't guarantee that you're saved, right? So, then, what is it that really saves you, if having a "perfect" or Biblical view of the Gospel cannot save you?

----------


## eduardo89

> Does God get pissed if ANYONE does this stuff, or just Christians?  I mean, how can he get upset with people he already is going to torture for eternity?.


God tortures no one.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Okay, then, FreedomFanatic. Let's do a test. I'm going to cite 1 Corinthians 15, and ask all of the Roman Catholics on here if they disagree with Paul's summation of the Gospel. Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are there any Roman Catholics here who disagree with Paul's proclamation of the Gospel there?*


Guess what.  Jehovah's Witnesses will say they believe that to.  But they believe in the wrong Christ, a Christ who is not God.  Therefore, even though they'd say they agree with the words Paul  wrote, they define them differently, specifically the word "Jesus."

Roman Catholics are the same way, except instead of defining "Jesus" differently they define "died for your sins according to the scriptures" differently.  The Biblical model is a penal substitutionary model in which Christ actually accomplishes redemption for all believing ones, without any requirements of the sinner.  The Catholic model is one in which righteousness is infused into the heart of the believer. Same words, different meaning.

Its kind of like when a libertarian says "liberty" vs when a neocon says "liberty" vs when a liberal says "liberty."  If you say "I support liberty" will any of them disagree?  Of course not.  But only the libertarian actually knows what liberty means.  The neocons and the liberals are saying they agree with liberty based on a faulty definition of the word.  We couldn't prove that neocons and liberals support liberty just by asking them if they believe in liberty.

Its the same thing here.

----------


## Crashland

> Does God get pissed if ANYONE does this stuff, or just Christians?  I mean, how can he get upset with people he already is going to torture for eternity?.


If I were a father, and my son murdered someone and was going to go to jail for life or receive capital punishment, you bet I'd be upset if he kept murdering more people!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My point is we Calvinists believe that we teach and hold to the Gospel, in its most faithful form, and yet, you can acknowledge that even having the right view of the Gospel doesn't guarantee that you're saved, right? So, then, what is it that really saves you, if having a "perfect" or Biblical view of the Gospel cannot save you?


I'd disagree with  the implicit assumption here that anyone can believe the gospel and yet not be saved.  I also disagree with the implied assumption that all "Calvinists" believe the gospel.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> God tortures no one.


This^^ If you see following God as "torture", that's simply your subjective opinion.  He gives us commandments and sacraments for our well-being.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This^^ If you see following God as "torture", that's simply your subjective opinion.  He gives us commandments and sacraments for our well-being.


Following God is not torture.  Spending eternity in hell is.  Which is what otherone was talking about.

----------


## Crashland

> This^^ If you see following God as "torture", that's simply your subjective opinion.  He gives us commandments and sacraments for our well-being.


I think the reference was to non-Christians, not Christians.

----------


## otherone

> This^^ If you see following God as "torture", that's simply your subjective opinion.  He gives us commandments and sacraments for our well-being.


??????
My comment had nothing to do with "following God is torture".   Are Buddhists damned?
edit: you fellers beat me to it

----------


## Nang

> My point is we Calvinists believe that we teach and hold to the Gospel, in its most faithful form, and yet, you can acknowledge that even having the right view of the Gospel doesn't guarantee that you're saved, right? So, then, what is it that really saves you, if having a "perfect" or Biblical view of the Gospel cannot save you?



Eh?

Whatever happened to Ephesians 1:13?

It is how persons either take away from, or add to the gospel presented in its most simplistic form in I Corinthians, that is the issue.

Do Roman Catholics add much to I Corinthians 15, or not?

Do Reformers take away from I Corinthians 15, or not.

There lies the answer to what gospel the Holy Spirit guarantees will bring everlasting life.

----------


## eduardo89

> Following God is not torture.  Spending eternity in hell is.  Which is what otherone was talking about.


Yes, but God is not the one who tortures us in hell. It is His absence, which those in hell have chosen, which tortures them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think the reference was to non-Christians, not Christians.


I know.  That's who I was referring to.

----------


## Crashland

> Yes, but God is not the one who tortures us in hell. It is His absence, which those in hell have chosen, which tortures them.


*reminisces over CS Lewis' _The Great Divorce_*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, but God is not the one who tortures us in hell. It is His absence, which those in hell have chosen, which tortures them.


That^^

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am a Protestant, but I respectfully disagree with Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic about Roman Catholics not being my brothers in the Faith. I do not agree with much of Roman Catholic theology, but I do acknowledge that they are trusting in Christ, based on their testimonies and their zeal to love God as best as they can, in accordance with the Scriptures (whether I have disagreements with them or not on certain passages).


Theo, the Jews had a zeal for God, but their zeal was not based on knowledge.




> *Romans 10:2
> 
> For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
> *


I say this with all due respect, but I think it is abhorrent that you would say that Roman Catholicism has the gospel.

----------


## Theocrat

> Guess what.  Jehovah's Witnesses will say they believe that to.  But they believe in the wrong Christ, a Christ who is not God.  Therefore, even though they'd say they agree with the words Paul  wrote, they define them differently, specifically the word "Jesus."
> 
> Roman Catholics are the same way, except instead of defining "Jesus" differently they define "died for your sins according to the scriptures" differently.  The Biblical model is a penal substitutionary model in which Christ actually accomplishes redemption for all believing ones, without any requirements of the sinner.  The Catholic model is one in which righteousness is infused into the heart of the believer. Same words, different meaning.
> 
> Its kind of like when a libertarian says "liberty" vs when a neocon says "liberty" vs when a liberal says "liberty."  If you say "I support liberty" will any of them disagree?  Of course not.  But only the libertarian actually knows what liberty means.  The neocons and the liberals are saying they agree with liberty based on a faulty definition of the word.  We couldn't prove that neocons and liberals support liberty just by asking them if they believe in liberty.
> 
> Its the same thing here.


FF, now you're comparing "apples and oranges." Jehovah's Witnesses worship a (mod delete) because their definition of God is not Trinitarian. They are Unitarians, after all (Mormons being polytheists). However, Roman Catholics are, historically, Trinitarian in their theology about God, so their view about God is Biblical. I think your first point misses another point, altogether.

Touching on "infused righteousness," I think we Calvinists have to be careful on that one, too. In our soteriology, we have traditionally believed in an _ordo salutis_ ("order of salvation") which, actually puts "infused righteousness" before "imputed righteousness." Why do I say that? It's because in the "order of salvation," regeneration precedes justification. We look at regeneration as a work which the Spirit does *in us*, to give us a new heart so that we can believe, and then we are justified by something *outside of us* because of faith in Christ. So, from that paradigm, there is an "infused righteousness" that is placed in us to make us believe what was done by Christ, which is "imputed righteousness" to our justification. So, you can't point the finger at Roman Catholics for believing in "infused righteousness" because we Reformed Christians believe in it, too, implicitly by the soteriological demands of the _ordo salutis_.

So, then, do you charge us Calvinists with adding works to salvation, given that model?

----------


## Nang

> Yes, but God is not the one who tortures us in hell. It is His absence, which those in hell have chosen, which tortures them.


Oh, please.

God does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3) and God decreed Satan, all his minions, and all wicked men would be removed to the torture of hell-fire forever and ever.  (Revelation 20:10-15)

You can't revise what God has ordained, eduardo . . .

----------


## otherone

> Yes, but God is not the one who tortures us in hell. It is His absence, which those in hell have chosen, which tortures them.


Chosen?  But what of those who did not receive God's grace?

----------


## Deborah K

> If God is all-powerful there cannot be anything that he does not control, including our choices. It's like asking if God can create an object so heavy he can't lift it. He can't because it would be contrary to the definition of God. So also creating us with true free will would mean God has created something that he does not control, which is contrary to God's nature. I would conclude that we only have the illusion of free will.


I don't see it this way at all!  He can control our choices if he wants to. I think he chooses not to. Although he knows every outcome and has a plan for each of us; He leaves it up to us to seek his guidance.  He lets us choose, and make our own mistakes and bad decisions so we can grow and learn.  He expects us to look out for each other too, and we usually don't.  He could make us, and he could control our every thought and move, but why?  What would be the point?

----------


## phill4paul

I'm right, you are wrong, blargh, blargh, blargh....

----------


## Crashland

> FF, now you're comparing "apples and oranges." Jehovah's Witnesses worship a false god (like Mormons) because their definition of God is not Trinitarian. They are Unitarians, after all (Mormons being polytheists). However, Roman Catholics are, historically, Trinitarian in their theology about God, so their view about God is Biblical. I think your first point misses another point, altogether.


Do people of Jewish faith believe in a different/false God because they view God as unitarian? How about Abraham?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Eh?
> 
> Whatever happened to Ephesians 1:13?
> 
> It is how persons either take away from, or add to the gospel presented in its most simplistic form in I Corinthians, that is the issue.
> 
> Do Roman Catholics add much to I Corinthians 15, or not?
> 
> Do Reformers take away from I Corinthians 15, or not.
> ...


As I told Theo, its irrelevant if someone uses the same terms as you if they mean them completely differently.

Ask anybody, from a neo-conservative to a liberal to a marxist to a nationalist "do you believe in liberty"?  and most will say yes.  My grandmother is a rabid Bush supporter who agrees with basically every police statist action you can think of in the name of security.  If you asked her "do you place a high value on liberty"?  She wouldn't say "no."  At the most she's say "yes but..."  and she might just say "Yes."  Similarly, if you asked Mayor Bloomberg if he supports liberty, he's say yes.  In his mind, taking guns away from people in order to create more security is "freedom".  In my grandmother's mind, similarly, having laws that allow the government to take away the rights of "suspicious" people makes us more safe and thus more "free."  Ask Ron Paul if he supports liberty, and he'll say, "yes."  But when he answers like that, what he means is RADICALLY different than what Mayor Bloomberg and my grandmother believe.  We wouldn't assume that my grandma and Mayor Bloomberg support liberty just because they say they do.  Neither of them understands what that term means, while Ron Paul does.  

Similarly, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all kinds of other people will say they agree with 1 Corinthians 15 but yet don't have a correct definition of what those words mean.

Does this mean one has to have a PERFECT understanding of 1 Corinthians 15 to be saved?  No.  Again, go back to my liberty analogy.  I don't agree with Ron Paul on every single issue, and there are a few cases where I don't believe he has a strong understanding of liberty.  But, his basic understanding of liberty is correct.  He understands it it negative terms (rights rather than privledges, freedom from coercion rather than positive rights to other people's stuff, etc.)  He understands that violence doesn't bring about liberty.  He understands that freedom doesn't mean the right to control other people.  That there are a couple of issues that he misses the mark doesn't undermine his committment to liberty.  And that Ron gets a few issues wrong and yet still supports liberty doesn't mean that everyone who says they support liberty actually does just because they say they do.  Mayor Bloomberg doesn't have an imperfect understanding of liberty, he just doesn't know what the word means at all.  Do you guys get what I'm getting at here?

----------


## eduardo89

> Chosen?  But what of those who did not receive God's grace?


At the Final Judgement Christ will judge us all. I leave it in His hands.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, now you're comparing "apples and oranges." Jehovah's Witnesses worship a (mod delete) because their definition of God is not Trinitarian. They are Unitarians, after all (Mormons being polytheists). However, Roman Catholics are, historically, Trinitarian in their theology about God, so their view about God is Biblical. I think your first point misses another point, altogether.


I say the Roman Catholics also (mod delete)  You can't separate who Christ is with what he did.




> Touching on "infused righteousness," I think we Calvinists have to be careful on that one, too. In our soteriology, we have traditionally believed in an _ordo salutis_ ("order of salvation") which, actually puts "infused righteousness" before "imputed righteousness." Why do I say that? It's because in the "order of salvation," regeneration precedes justification. We look at regeneration as a work which the Spirit does *in us*, to give us a new heart so that we can believe, and then we are justified by something *outside of us* because of faith in Christ. So, from that paradigm, there is an "infused righteousness" that is placed in us to make us believe what was done by Christ, which is "imputed righteousness" to our justification. So, you can't point the finger at Roman Catholics for believing in "infused righteousness" because we Reformed Christians believe in it, too, implicitly by the soteriological demands of the _ordo salutis_.
> 
> So, then, do you charge us Calvinists with adding works to salvation, given that model?


To be honest here, I think your federal visionism really borders on this and I was definitely concerned by some of your answers to my questions in PM.  But, I don't think the model you describe above is works salvation.  Here's the question, WHY is a person saved?  Does it have to do with anything that he does, or does it have to do with what Christ did for him?  That's the real issue.

I think its unavoidable that new believers will put too much stock in their own "decision" but I see a huge difference between that and outright saying that you are saved even in part by something that you do, which all baptismal regenerationists (including Catholics) do.

----------


## Crashland

> I don't see it this way at all!  He can control our choices if he wants to. I think he chooses not to. Although he knows every outcome and has a plan for each of us; He leaves it up to us to seek his guidance.  He lets us choose, and make our own mistakes and bad decisions so we can grow and learn.  He expects us to look out for each other too, and we usually don't.  He could make us, and he could control our every thought and move, but why?  What would be the point?


I am having trouble picturing that though. Can God really self-inflict a limit on his own power? I mean, God could create a heavy object and say "I will not lift this object". That does not mean that he does not still have full control over it and could lift it at any time. I don't see how any true "free will" other than the will of God could exist. Do *you* control the thoughts that pop into your head?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Touching on "infused righteousness," I think we Calvinists have to be careful on that one, too. In our soteriology, we have traditionally believed in an _ordo salutis_ ("order of salvation") which, actually puts "infused righteousness" before "imputed righteousness." Why do I say that? It's because in the "order of salvation," regeneration precedes justification. We look at regeneration as a work which the Spirit does *in us*, to give us a new heart so that we can believe, and then we are justified by something *outside of us* because of faith in Christ. So, from that paradigm, there is an "infused righteousness" that is placed in us to make us believe what was done by Christ, which is "imputed righteousness" to our justification. So, you can't point the finger at Roman Catholics for believing in "infused righteousness" because we Reformed Christians believe in it, too, implicitly by the soteriological demands of the _ordo salutis_.


If any "Calvinist" believed that an infusion of righteousness begats the imputation of righteousness, then that person is lost, because he does not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ which BEGINS (in terms of the order of salvation) with the predestination and election of God's people before the world was created.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do people of Jewish faith believe in a different/false God because they view God as unitarian? How about Abraham?


Jews believe in the first person of God (except Messianic Jews).  Some would argue they also believe in the 3rd person, but I've never read a scholar who claimed that, so IDK.  Abraham was a "traditional"/"orthodox" Jew (if you feel such a word applies), so his God was the same as the other Jews.  It's kinda hard to speak about all Jews, as they've always been split into factions(pharisees, sadducees, etc).

----------


## Theocrat

> I say the Roman Catholics also worship a false God.  You can't separate who Christ is with what he did.


How is Roman Catholicism's view of Christ, then, a "false view" of Christ (which would make it an idol)? Be more specific.




> To be honest here, I think your federal visionism really borders on this and I was definitely concerned by some of your answers to my questions in PM.  But, I don't think the model you describe above is works salvation.  Here's the question, WHY is a person saved?  Does it have to do with anything that he does, or does it have to do with what Christ did for him?  That's the real issue.
> 
> I think its unavoidable that new believers will put too much stock in their own "decision" but I see a huge difference between that and outright saying that you are saved even in part by something that you do, which all baptismal regenerationists (including Catholics) do.


FF, you're asking the wrong question. The question we should be asking is not "Why is a person saved," but "What does the Lord require of us?" Do you see the difference between the two questions?

----------


## phill4paul

So Theo, do you still advocate for the execution of non-repentant gays?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So Theo, do you still advocate for the execution of non-repentant gays?


Let it go man.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How is Roman Catholicism's view of Christ, then, a "false view" of Christ (which would make it an idol)? Be more specific.


They share God's glory with the saints and they reject imputed righteousness, which is an essential component of the gospel.  You can't separate who Christ is from what he did.  Jehovah's Witnesses have a completely warped view of who Christ is, while Roman Catholics have a warped view of what he did.  Both are lost.

Now, I'm not saying that someone has to have an absolutely perfect understanding of either who Christ is or what he did in order to be saved.  For instance, I would say that all Arians are lost, but I wouldn't say that all Neostorians are lost.  The Neostorian issue is a complex one that would require a lot of study to pin down, while the proposition that "Jesus is God" is really simple and basic.  I'd say the same thing, at least at the present time, comparing Catholicism with Arminianism.  Arminianism is more like Neostorianism, while Catholicism is more like Arianism, based on the degree of error involved with each.





> FF, you're asking the wrong question. The question we should be asking is not "Why is a person saved," but "What does the Lord require of us?" Do you see the difference between the two questions?


I disagree that I'm asking the wrong question, though I do see the difference between the questions.  Both questions need to be asked.

----------


## otherone

> What would be the point?



What is the point of any of this?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Let it go man.


I know its off topic, but if Theo does believe that (I'm not accusing him of believing that) I think that would be worth talking about at some point, seeing as its an ethical question and relates to the whole coercion thing we've been talking about in other threads.  I don't think this thread would be the right place to talk about it though.

----------


## Theocrat

> If any "Calvinist" believed that an infusion of righteousness begats the imputation of righteousness, then that person is lost, because he does not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ which BEGINS (in terms of the order of salvation) with the predestination and election of God's people before the world was created.


I agree that predestination and election are very key elements to our salvation, but you also must acknowledge that, at some point in the "salvation process," our hearts must be changed so that we can believe. And that change of heart is *an infusion of righteousness* (initiated only by the Spirit, of course), which changes our will so that we gladly receive the promises of salvation and choose to believe and trust in Christ (our justification) and live for Him (our sanctification). Clearly, "infusion" comes before "imputation," my brother.

But perhaps that begs another question. Can we say that justification (in the sense of "imputed righteousness") begins with our predestination and election, given what Paul says in Ephesians 1? After all, Christ new who He was going to die for in eternity, before He stepped into history and actually did it. That's just something to chew on.

----------


## phill4paul

> Let it go man.


  Why?




> I know its off topic, but if Theo does believe that (I'm not accusing him of believing that) I think that would be worth talking about at some point, seeing as its an ethical question and relates to the whole coercion thing we've been talking about in other threads.  I don't think this thread would be the right place to talk about it though.


  As good a time as any. Murder was one of the OP's points..no?

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't think infused righteousness is just "God works faith and good works into the heart of the believer."  Nobody would disagree with that.  Infused righteousness means that God accepts man on the basis of a righteousness which is God given but is worked by God into the man's heart rather than an alien righteousness that is imputed to his account.

So, I would say that God imputes Christ's righteousness at the moment of faith, so chronologically they happen at the same time, but logically the imputation comes first since belief is caused by imputation and not the other way around.  I'm not sure this debate would be at the same level as the debates on soteriology between Catholicism and Protestantism though.

----------


## Crashland

> Why?


Because it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

----------


## phill4paul

> Because it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand?


  Advocating the killing of un-repentant gays would fall under the definition of murder..no?

----------


## Theocrat

> They share God's glory with the saints and they reject imputed righteousness, which is an essential component of the gospel.  You can't separate who Christ is from what he did.  Jehovah's Witnesses have a completely warped view of who Christ is, while Roman Catholics have a warped view of what he did.  Both are lost.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that someone has to have an absolutely perfect understanding of either who Christ is or what he did in order to be saved.  For instance, I would say that all Arians are lost, but I wouldn't say that all Neostorians are lost.  The Neostorian issue is a complex one that would require a lot of study to pin down, while the proposition that "Jesus is God" is really simple and basic.  I'd say the same thing, at least at the present time, comparing Catholicism with Arminianism.  Arminianism is more like Neostorianism, while Catholicism is more like Arianism, based on the degree of error involved with each.


Okay, and I agree with you that Roman Catholics are wrong for rejecting any imputation of righteousness in salvation because Christ did all of the atoning by Himself. However, I would say that Roman Catholics still have the effects of imputation of Christ's righteousness (whether they believe it or not) because of their union with Christ by baptism (I know I just opened another can of worms on that one...). I don't have time to develop that here, so I'll just have top shelve it for another time.




> I disagree that I'm asking the wrong question, though I do see the difference between the questions.  Both questions need to be asked.


The simple point or importance of the two questions is that I believe you can't answer the former without answering the latter.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am having trouble picturing that though. Can God really self-inflict a limit on his own power? I mean, God could create a heavy object and say "I will not lift this object". That does not mean that he does not still have full control over it and could lift it at any time. I don't see how any true "free will" other than the will of God could exist. Do *you* control the thoughts that pop into your head?


I don't think of it as God self inflicting a limit on his own power.  I see it as, he created me with the will to choose whether or not to believe that he did (create me).  Since I choose to believe that he did, it means I accept his gift of faith.  As such, it causes me to grow in his love and guidance, and to learn wisdom and common sense, two things he requires of us.  He also requires that we love one another, and that to me means to help, protect, comfort, support, and teach each other, among other things.    I'm flawed (hopelessly), but even though I sin, I ask for forgiveness and I know I am forgiven.  All of these things make my life whole and happy, and fulfilled.

Someone who chooses not to believe in the Creator, refuses the gift of faith, and lives his life in the absence of God, and all that it entails.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree that predestination and election are very key elements to our salvation, but you also must acknowledge that, at some point in the "salvation process," our hearts must be changed so that we can believe. And that change of heart is *an infusion of righteousness* (initiated only by the Spirit, of course), which changes our will so that we gladly receive the promises of salvation and choose to believe and trust in Christ (our justification) and live for Him (our sanctification). Clearly, "infusion" comes before "imputation," my brother.
> 
> But perhaps that begs another question. Can we say that justification (in the sense of "imputed righteousness") begins with our predestination and election, given what Paul says in Ephesians 1? After all, Christ new who He was going to die for in eternity, before He stepped into history and actually did it. That's just something to chew on.


I hate these order of salvation debates because I think so many of these things overlap.  The important thing to understand about why infused righteousness, as taught by Rome, is wrong and unbiblical is that it says that justification is a process that is managed in the heart by a combination of God's grace and man's works.  It denies sola gratia.  It teaches men to look inward to their religious works rather than outward to the pristine grace of God alone.

It also teaches that man _becomes_ righteous.  And this is a monstrous and hideous lie.  Man never becomes righteous.  Man is only _accounted_ as righteous solely by the imputation of Christ's merits to him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Advocating the killing of un-repentant gays would fall under the definition of murder..no?


I say yes, it does.



> Okay, and I agree with you that Roman Catholics are wrong for rejecting any imputation of righteousness in salvation because Christ did all of the atoning by Himself. However, I would say that Roman Catholics still have the effects of imputation of Christ's righteousness (whether they believe it or not) because of their union with Christ by baptism (I know I just opened another can of worms on that one...). I don't have time to develop that here, so I'll just have top shelve it for another time.


Yeah, this seems like a critical point of difference in our beliefs about the gospel.  If you really believe this than I don't see how I could possibly consider you a Christian.  Baptismal regeneration is blatantly heretical.  Repent and believe the true gospel.





> The simple point or importance of the two questions is that I believe you can't answer the former without answering the latter.


I don't see why that would be the case.

----------


## eduardo89

> Repent and believe the true gospel.


Oh shut up, FF.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Okay, and I agree with you that Roman Catholics are wrong for rejecting any imputation of righteousness in salvation because Christ did all of the atoning by Himself. However, I would say that Roman Catholics still have the effects of imputation of Christ's righteousness (whether they believe it or not) because of their union with Christ by baptism (I know I just opened another can of worms on that one...). I don't have time to develop that here, so I'll just have top shelve it for another time.



Oh Theo....This is why I hate what Federal Visionism has done to modern Calvinism.  It has led it away from grace alone and put it right back on the path to Rome.  You essentially have the same view as Eduardo.  Why don't you just become a Roman Catholic and get it over with then?

----------


## acptulsa

Well, I must confess.

I, too, don't believe that all roads lead to a Roman bath.

----------


## Theocrat

> I hate these order of salvation debates because I think so many of these things overlap.  The important thing to understand about why infused righteousness, as taught by Rome, is wrong and unbiblical is that it says that justification is a process that is managed in the heart by a combination of God's grace and man's works.  It denies sola gratia.  It teaches men to look inward to their religious works rather than outward to the pristine grace of God alone.


You know, I'm not too fond of the _ordo salutis_ models, either. [lol] I appreciate them because they are a way of expressing how God's sovereignly moves in our salvation, but I don't really accept them as the formal way that we must understand the nature of salvation.

I don't know, Sola. If you asked any Roman Catholic who is the Author of the work being wrought in their heart, I would venture to say they would ascribe it to God. Now, they might be prone to say that God is helping them with the work, instead of God is doing the work Himself, but I see that as a semantic issue.




> It also teaches that man _becomes_ righteous.  And this is a monstrous and hideous lie.  Man never becomes righteous.  Man is only _accounted_ as righteous solely by the imputation of Christ's merits to him.


Are there any righteous people in the world, though, Sola? I would say so.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh Theo....This is why I hate what Federal Visionism has done to modern Calvinism.  It has led it away from grace alone and put it right back on the path to Rome.  You essentially have the same view as Eduardo.  Why don't you just become a Roman Catholic and get it over with then?


This is why Theo thinks Roman Catholics have the imputed righteousness of Christ.  At first I thought it was just too much charity, but it seems like he actually does believe a similar gospel to what they believe.  This is downright depressing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You know, I'm not too fond of the _ordo salutis_ models, either. [lol] I appreciate them because they are a way of expressing how God's sovereignly moves in our salvation, but I don't really accept them as the formal way that we must understand the nature of salvation.
> 
> I don't know, Sola. If you asked any Roman Catholic who is the Author of the work being wrought in their heart, I would venture to say they would ascribe it to God. Now, they might be prone to say that God is helping them with the work, instead of God is doing the work Himself, but I see that as a semantic issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any righteous people in the world, though, Sola? I would say so.


I see no point in discussing whether Roman Catholics are saved with you at this point.  It seems to me that we really need to discuss what the gospel is first.  Romans 4:5 completely rejects your view of imputation.  You don't understand why the Roman Catholics deny the gospel because you yourself do not understand the gospel.  Which really makes me sad because you come out so strong for the sovereignty of God, but then in practice you accept a works-based model.

----------


## phill4paul

Soooooo, Theo, do you _still_ believe that all non-repentant gays should be put to death?

  And yes. I will keep asking until I am answered.

----------


## eduardo89

> Oh Theo....This is why I hate what Federal Visionism has done to modern Calvinism.  It has led it away from grace alone and put it right back on the path to Rome.  You essentially have the same view as Eduardo.  Why don't you just become a Roman Catholic and get it over with then?


I would welcome him with open arms. I already do, actually. 

Anyway, Theo, I was wonder what you think of this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

----------


## acptulsa

> It seems to me that we really need to discuss what the gospel is first.


If I say the Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament, do I win a one-way ticket to hell?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Soooooo, Theo, do you _still_ believe that all non-repentant gays should be put to death?
> 
>   And yes. I will keep asking until I am answered.


I sort of cared about this when I was under the impression that Theo believed the gospel.

Now that I realize he believes in a completely different gospel, that's the first thing that is on my mind.  Who cares if someone's political  views are wrong if they don't understand the gospel?  That goes for you as well as for him.  The imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith alone is a life or death matter.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If I say the Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament, do I win a one-way ticket to hell?


Of course not.

----------


## Crashland

> I don't think of it as God self inflicting a limit on his own power.  I see it as, he created me with the will to choose whether or not to believe that he did (create me).  Since I choose to believe that he did, it means I accept his gift of faith.  As such, it causes me to grow in his love and guidance, and to learn wisdom and common sense, two things he requires of us.  He also requires that we love one another, and that to me means to help, protect, comfort, support, and teach each other, among other things.    I'm flawed (hopelessly), but even though I sin, I ask for forgiveness and I know I am forgiven.  All of these things make my life whole and happy, and fulfilled.
> 
> Someone who chooses not to believe in the Creator, refuses the gift of faith, and lives his life in the absence of God, and all that it entails.


Assuming for argument's sake that your belief is a choice, regardless of what you choose though, is it possible to choose something that was not God's will for you to choose? If so, I am still having trouble reconciling that with God's omnipotence. How could anything happen in the entire creation that isn't God's plan?

And yes, belief in God is definitely a source of happiness and fulfillment for many. Although I would argue other people derive fulfillment from other religions or other sources as well, and happiness/fulfillment is not a compelling reason to believe in something

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know, I'm not too fond of the _ordo salutis_ models, either. [lol] I appreciate them because they are a way of expressing how God's sovereignly moves in our salvation, but I don't really accept them as the formal way that we must understand the nature of salvation.
> 
> I don't know, Sola. If you asked any Roman Catholic who is the Author of the work being wrought in their heart, I would venture to say they would ascribe it to God. Now, they might be prone to say that God is helping them with the work, instead of God is doing the work Himself, but I see that as a semantic issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any righteous people in the world, though, Sola? I would say so.




I have a lot of sympathy for you Theo, because I used to be swayed by Van Til and Reconstructionism before (I believe) God opened my eyes to what grace truly was.  I was involved in the Reconstructionist movement, and I met several people like Steve Schlissel and Andrew Sandlin who influenced me greatly, but at this point I wouldn't even consider Christian men.  

I used to read Van Til when he said that God was 1 person and 3 persons at the same time and I never even questioned how irrational that position was.

And then when FV came on the scene, I went right along with it, and (even though I was a Baptist!) started to believe in baptismal regeneration and "covenant faithfulness".  

All of it:  Covenant faithfulness, baptismal regeneration, infused righteousness....all of it is a denial of the sovereign grace of God.  Van Til and his irrationalism is a denial of God Himself.  I began to understand the severity of the error of FV.

----------


## Christian Liberty

For any of you who say that Jesus taught a different gospel than Paul (Which I think acptulsa is implying) look at John 3:18 and John 10:26.  Jesus teaches that the difference between saved and lost people is that the saved BELIEVE, and Jesus also teaches that the reason why certain people believe is because they are Christ's sheep, rather than the other way around.  Jesus taught a gospel of faith alone just like Paul did.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have a lot of sympathy for you Theo, because I used to be swayed by Van Til and Reconstructionism before (I believe) God opened my eyes to what grace truly was.  I was involved in the Reconstructionist movement, and I met several people like Steve Schlissel and Andrew Sandlin who influenced me greatly, but at this point I wouldn't even consider Christian men.  
> 
> I used to read Van Til when he said that God was 1 person and 3 persons at the same time and I never even questioned how irrational that position was.
> 
> And then when FV came on the scene, I went right along with it, and (even though I was a Baptist!) started to believe in baptismal regeneration and "covenant faithfulness".  
> 
> All of it:  Covenant faithfulness, baptismal regeneration, infused righteousness....all of it is a denial of the sovereign grace of God.  Van Til and his irrationalism is a denial of God Himself.  I began to understand the severity of the error of FV.


I never fully believed in it, but I was leaning toward the viewpoint that baptismal regeneration was true for awhile as well.  I was also seriously considering the Catholic Church at one point.  I didn't understand the truth and I ran across some people that were very convincing.  In spite of "experiences" that I thought were true at the time, I've come to the conclusion that I was not a Christian and did not understand the gospel back then.  So, when I tell certain people that they aren't Christians because of certain things they believe, I am motivated by compassion, not judgmentalism.  I'm not any better than anyone else here.  I used to believe in many of the heresies that I now condemn.  I condemn them not because I'm better than those who don't, but because Jesus Christ changed my heart.  Praise him!

----------


## phill4paul

> I sort of cared about this when I was under the impression that Theo believed the gospel.
> 
> Now that I realize he believes in a completely different gospel, that's the first thing that is on my mind.  Who cares if someone's political  views are wrong if they don't understand the gospel?  That goes for you as well as for him.  *The imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith alone is a life or death matter.*


 Not to me. It matters not a whit. For I do not believe. And my non-belief is just as present and abiding as your belief. So here we sit. You in your Christian righteousness and me in my natural righteousness. But, neither feel un-repentant gays should be executed for their beliefs. So at least there is that.

----------


## Theocrat

> Oh Theo....This is why I hate what Federal Visionism has done to modern Calvinism.  It has led it away from grace alone and put it right back on the path to Rome.  You essentially have the same view as Eduardo.  Why don't you just become a Roman Catholic and get it over with then?





> I see no point in discussing whether Roman Catholics are saved with you at this point.  It seems to me that we really need to discuss what the gospel is first.  Romans 4:5 completely rejects your view of imputation.  You don't understand why the Roman Catholics deny the gospel because you yourself do not understand the gospel.  Which really makes me sad because you come out so strong for the sovereignty of God, but then in practice you accept a works-based model.


Here is one of the reasons why I may be sounding a bit strange to you two: in these discussions, there has been an unspoken assumption about the nature of salvation amongst us, and I'm going to tell you both now what that assumption is: *the idea or belief that salvation is founded on a "merit-based" system*. This is where the "covenant of works" versus "covenant of grace" comes into play. And for the moment, I'm going to tell you both that I reject the idea that salvation was ever based on "merit" (though I don't feel uncomfortable using that language when in discussions with my Reformed brethren on covenant theology). I believe that the assumption of "merit" blinds us from the covenantal language which the Bible uses, especially when it comes to baptism.

So, no, I am not walking down the road to Rome, but I'm also not going to let the language of our Reformed confessions dictate how I read passages in the Bible, especially when the Biblical language is missing from those confessions. I detest many of the errors of Rome, but I also detest many of our errors as Reformed Christians, too. Our legalism and antinominalism pervades many congregations, as well as strict confessionalism, which, ironically, makes us act like Roman Catholic when we appeal more to those than the Scriptures.

----------


## eduardo89

> I was also seriously considering the Catholic Church at one point. !


You couldn't have been seriously considering it because you know next to nothing about Catholicism. You've learned a bit since we started debating, but you still misunderstand (perhaps wilfully?) the vast majority of our faith. When we started debating about a year ago, you were so ignorant to what we believe that there is no way you could have been seriously considering the Church.

----------


## acptulsa

> Assuming for argument's sake that your belief is a choice, regardless of what you choose though, is it possible to choose something that was not God's will for you to choose? If so, I am still having trouble reconciling that with God's omnipotence. How could anything happen in the entire creation that isn't God's plan?


God _could_ refuse to micromanage.  He could.  I doubt any of us could come up with something that He didn't expect.  But that doesn't mean He can't, if He chooses, just wind us up and let us go.




> For any of you who say that Jesus taught a different gospel than Paul (Which I think acptulsa is implying)...


Hope you don't have too much faith in that.

I'm not implying anything.  But I was raised to believe Gospels are Gospels and Epistles are Epistles.  And the writers of Epistles may have been inspired and led by God.  But the words and actions of Jesus are the words and actions of God.

Makes a difference to me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here is one of the reasons why I may be sounding a bit strange to you two: in these discussions, there has been an unspoken assumption about the nature of salvation amongst us, and I'm going to tell you both now what that assumption is: *the idea or belief that salvation is founded on a "merit-based" system*. This is where the "covenant of works" versus "covenant of grace" comes into play. And for the moment, I'm going to tell you both that I reject the idea that salvation was ever based on "merit" (though I don't feel uncomfortable using that language when in discussions with my Reformed brethren on covenant theology). I believe that the assumption of "merit" blinds us from the covenantal language which the Bible uses, especially when it comes to baptism.
> 
> So, no, I am not walking down the road to Rome, but I'm also not going to let the language of our Reformed confessions dictate how I read passages in the Bible, especially when the Biblical language is missing from those confessions. I detest many of the errors of Rome, but I also detest many of our errors as Reformed Christians, too. Our legalism and antinominalism pervades many congregations, as well as strict confessionalism, which, ironically, makes us act like Roman Catholic when we appeal more to those than the Scriptures.


I don't think I'm confused.  I don't know where anyone said salvation is based on merit.  I'm saved even though I don't deserve it.  You said Roman Catholics are Christians because they've been baptized.  You're judging by the outward sign (baptism) rather than the work Christ has done.  This is the Judaizer heresy.  I don't see any possible way I could be misinterpreting you.  And this seems very much like the road to Rome.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not to me. It matters not a whit. For I do not believe. And my non-belief is just as present and abiding as your belief. So here we sit. You in your Christian righteousness and me in my natural righteousness. But, neither feel un-repentant gays should be executed for their beliefs. So at least there is that.


Not only do I believe gays (repentant or not) should be executed, I would hold that such a belief is REPULSIVE.  It stems from a misunderstanding of what OT Israel's penal code was for.  The point was to show how sinful we are, but reconstructionists make it into a model by which to use to justify NT Christians trying to take over society and control other people.  Its evil and the Bible does not teach it.




> You couldn't have been seriously considering it because you know next to nothing about Catholicism. You've learned a bit since we started debating, but you still misunderstand (perhaps wilfully?) the vast majority of our faith. When we started debating about a year ago, you were so ignorant to what we believe that there is no way you could have been seriously considering the Church.


I don't think I ever got to the point where I was ready to jump in and convert to the Catholic Church as soon as I got the chance.  But I was definitely open to the Catholic Church at that point, I was confused by the fact that what I was reading in the church father's writings seemed so different to what I believed, and I thought the Bible taught baptismal regeneration.

----------


## Theocrat

> I sort of cared about this when I was under the impression that Theo believed the gospel.
> 
> Now that I realize he believes in a completely different gospel, that's the first thing that is on my mind.  Who cares if someone's political  views are wrong if they don't understand the gospel?  That goes for you as well as for him.  The imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith alone is a life or death matter.


I can assure you that I'm trusting in Christ alone for my salvation. I know when I get into Heaven, it will only be because of the "Sheepskin" covering me, which I never purchased. But the Bible has an awful lot to say about the Gospel, and my duty is to study it and believe it, in whatever way the Bible teaches it. Scripture is the authority, the Spirit is the Author, and God is the One Who holds me responsible for seeing His Son throughout ALL of the passages.

You can try to charge me with "believing in a different Gospel," but you know me well enough that I know the Scriptures enough to prove otherwise. Don't even try to use the "H-word" on me. I take my faith very seriously.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Then why even bother to create tests that created idiots can't pass?


Babies are only going to fall and get hurt. Why go through the trials, troubles, and tears to teach them to walk at all?

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't think I ever got to the point where I was ready to jump in and convert to the Catholic Church as soon as I got the chance.  But I was definitely open to the Catholic Church at that point, I was confused by the fact that what I was reading in the church father's writings seemed so different to what I believed, and I thought the Bible taught baptismal regeneration.


The fact that Christians universally taught one thing for 1500 years before your ideas began to pop up should in fact confuse you. It should make you feel incredibly uncomfortable about what you believe.

Baptismal regeneration is not only what the Church Fathers taught, it is what is written in Scripture.

----------


## otherone

> Babies are only going to fall and get hurt. Why go through the trials, troubles, and tears to teach them to walk at all?


LOL!
Eternal damnation is one HELL of a boo-boo!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I can assure you that I'm trusting in Christ alone for my salvation. I know when I get into Heaven, it will only be because of the "Sheepskin" covering me, which I never purchased. But the Bible has an awful lot to say about the Gospel, and my duty is to study it and believe it, in whatever way the Bible teaches it. Scripture is the authority, the Spirit is the Author, and God is the One Who holds me responsible for seeing His Son throughout ALL of the passages.


Yet you say that Roman Catholics are saved because they were baptized.  You're judging based on baptism, not based on the gospel.  I don't see how I can say you believe the gospel when you are saying that people are saved by baptism.




> You can try to charge me with "believing in a different Gospel," but you know me well enough that I know the Scriptures enough to prove otherwise. Don't even try to use the "H-word" on me. I take my faith very seriously.


What H-word?  Heretic?  Yes, baptismal regeneration is heresy.

I have no doubt you know the scriptures more thoroughly than I do.  Heck, eduardo may as well.  So what?  That's not really the point.  Its not about how much scripture you know or can quote.  I don't judge based on that.  I judge based on the GOSPEL.  One can know the gospel without (directly) knowing any scripture at all, and someone can have the entire Bible memorized without actually knowing what the gospel is.  

Salvation is by faith alone in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone.  This is completely incompatible with baptismal regeneration of any kind.  I understand that this is offensive, but its the truth.  See Romans 4:5 and John 3:18.




> The fact that Christians universally taught one thing for 1500 years before your ideas began to pop up should in fact confuse you. It should make you feel incredibly uncomfortable about what you believe.


I don't believe that what you are saying there is true.  Just because we don't have written records of certain teachings does not mean they did not exist.




> Baptismal regeneration is not only what the Church Fathers taught, it is what is written in Scripture.


No.  That's what I may have said when I was lost.  But that is not true.  See the verses I gave Theo.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't believe that what you are saying there is true.  Just because we don't have written records of certain teachings does not mean they did not exist.


That is such a faulty argument, especially because you get your ideas from the Reformers, not some remnant group that may or may not have existed.




> No.  That's what I may have said when I was lost.  But that is not true.  See the verses I gave Theo.


Titus 3:5; John 3:5; Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Acts 2:38

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How is God's predestination any different at all than Him causing something to happen?


Maybe I'm wrong, but my post above explains how I see it.  My sixth proposition directly answers this.  

It also goes back to what you said earlier.  Man's default choice is always sin.  That's what man is.  If God does not intervene in a sinful man's life, he will always choose wickedness.  There's a 0% chance that he won't, yet he's still making the choice. I  see it like offering a lion a dead antelope and a plate of vegetables and the zoo owner telling him to choose.  Is the zoo owner "causing" the lion to choose the meat?  Not really.  But is he predestining that he will choose the meat, in that he is planning that the lion will choose the meat?  Yes.  Does the lion have "free will"?  Not really.  He has a will, but his will is bound by his nature, so he is absolutely guaranteed to make the choice that fits his nature.  Namely, meat.  Same with natural man, it is absolutely guaranteed that he will choose according to his nature... sin...

----------


## PierzStyx

> Why would a omniscient omnipotent all seeing creator need to create a test? He certainly knew how it would all turn out from the beginning.





> Good question.  What the free will compromisers are proposing is irrational.


Its simple. Because God isn't looking to build robots, but beings capable of being like Him. Heaven is a lot more than sitting on your duff and singing songs to harp music. The learning experiences we have here in life we have to learn to choose good from evil, to choose God over everything else. Sure God could have just made some beings to carry out His will, but He is looking to make individuals not robots. Robots don't learn, they're programmed. Individuals cannot be programmed and can only learn by experience. In order to become the kind of being we need to be we have to experience good from evil and choose good in, by, and through the power of Jesus Christ. God's knowing the end from the beginning means nothing in this equation because it isn't about Him, its about us. He knows what experiences we would need in order to become the kind of beings that would follow Him and be able to be made like Him. That is what Earth is, a place where experience molds us and guides us and if we wish, the grace of Jesus Christ can remake us into something far beyond anything we could ever imagine.

----------


## PierzStyx

> LOL!
> Eternal damnation is one HELL of a boo-boo!


Eternal damnation is a choice one willingly makes. God doesn't force it upon anyone. Eternal damnation only comes to those people who choose to knowingly reject Jesus Christ, knowing it will lead them to have less light, glory, power, or perfections. Eternal damnation is what happens when you know God is offering you more and you don't want it, you're stopping your eternal progression that leads to becoming like Him. You are in fact "damming" yourself in the same way a dam stops a river from flowing.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The fact that Christians universally taught one thing for 1500 years before your ideas began to pop up should in fact confuse you. It should make you feel incredibly uncomfortable about what you believe.
> 
> Baptismal regeneration is not only what the Church Fathers taught, it is what is written in Scripture.


"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." -John 3:5

Most Protestants fall under the condemnation Nicodemus got from the Master. 

" Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"-John 3:10

----------


## otherone

> Eternal damnation is a choice one willingly makes. God doesn't force it upon anyone. Eternal damnation only comes to those people who choose to knowingly reject Jesus Christ, knowing it will lead them to have less light, glory, power, or perfections. Eternal damnation is what happens when you know God is offering you more and you don't want it, you're stopping your eternal progression that leads to becoming like Him. You are in fact "damming" yourself in the same way a dam stops a river from flowing.


Thanks for the clarification, but that wasn't my point.   Your analogy about having kids knowing that they will encounter pain being comparable to God creating man knowing they would be damned is not comparable.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thanks for the clarification, but that wasn't my point.   Your analogy about having kids knowing that they will encounter pain being comparable to God creating man knowing they would be damned is not comparable.


Correct.  It is not comparable.  What you will find with all of these cultic and sub-biblical conceptions of God is that they cannot stand up to consistency and rationality.

----------


## phill4paul

Theo continues to evade. Must be tough in a circle of Christians, when one is trying to out Christian other Christians, to admit to wanting to murder individuals for their sexual preference. Murder for the sake of purging non-violent transgressors doesn't get too far with _most_ Christians these days. So, I guess there is that.

----------


## eduardo89

> Theo continues to evade. Must be tough in a circle of Christians, when one is trying to out Christian other Christians, to admit to wanting to murder individuals for their sexual preference. Murder for the sake of purging non-violent transgressors doesn't get too far with _most_ Christians these days. So, I guess there is that.


Are you a homosexual? I ask because that's the only possible explanation why you're so obsessed with a comment he might have made years ago. I don't usually agree with Sola, but he's right in this instance. Get over it.

----------


## phill4paul

> Are you a homosexual? I ask because that's the only possible explanation why you're so obsessed with a comment he might have made years ago. I don't usually agree with Sola, but he's right in this instance. Get over it.


  No. I've got an ole lady. Happily straight. Though I know a few gay couples. Some are even Christians. Though I'm sure many here would find cause to find _their_ faith invalid.
  I just find people that advocate murder of non-violent offenders repugnant. Regardless of their religious affiliation. I combat it through excoriation. Exposing it. Keeping their sin against fellow man exposed. Regardless of how much time they take off from the forums and then try to slip back in claiming righteousness of belief.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No. I've got an ole lady. Happily straight. Though I know a few gay couples. Some are even Christians. Though I'm sure many here would find cause to find _their_ faith invalid.
>   I just find people that advocate murder of non-violent offenders repugnant. Regardless of their religious affiliation. I combat it through excoriation. Exposing it. Keeping their sin against fellow man exposed. Regardless of how much time they take off from the forums and then try to slip back in claiming righteousness of belief.


There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.

----------


## eduardo89

> There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.


Yes, there is. Every Christian sins. Every Christian has temptations. Just as some of us are tempted by attractive women, Satan tempts other men with homosexual lust.

Edit: Nevermind that, in your theology it's God that makes men have sex with other men, not Satan.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.


Is there any such thing as a Christian who wants to murder ("execute") homosexuals?

----------


## Crashland

> There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.


Christians don't battle sin? That's like saying there's no such thing as a Christian who struggles with lust, or lying.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, there is. Every Christian sins. Every Christian has temptations. Just as some of us are tempted by attractive women, Satan tempts other men with homosexual lust.


Do you think Sola is talking about someone who struggles with homosexual desires but tries to bring every thought captive to Jesus Christ and overcome temptation with his help?  Of course not.  Would such a person identify as a "homosexual Christian"?  Of course not.  I struggle with lust on a daily basis but I don't identify as a "lustful Christian."  And I'm not proud of the fact that I struggle with lust.  

When Sola says "homosexual Christian" he's talking about an unrepentant homosexual who believes his behavior is OK.  He's not talking about someone who is struggling with homosexual desires but agrees with God that these actions are evil and seeks to overcome them.

Of course, you'd likely still disagree with him, you'd say they are just Christians who are sometimes in mortal sin or whatever, but at least you should understand what he's talking about.  I doubt he's saying a Christian will never struggle with homosexual desires.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Christians don't battle sin? That's like saying there's no such thing as a Christian who struggles with lust, or lying.


I'm 99% certain he's using "homosexual" as an identifier.  People who struggle with lust, hate, alcoholism, gambling addiction, drug addiction, covetousness, or any number of other sins generally don't identify themselves by their sin.  Nobody claims to be a "lustful Christian" or a "lust-accepting Christian."  Or a "Christian hater [well, maybe the WBC]".  And so forth.  Someone who claims to be a "homosexual Christian" is almost certainly someone who is accepting of the gay lifestyle, not someone who struggles with homosexual desires.

----------


## acptulsa

> There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.


So, a person with homosexual desires who represses them in order to be a Christian isn't a homosexual?  Fair enough.

But is he a Works Salvationist?

----------


## Crashland

> Do you think Sola is talking about someone who struggles with homosexual desires but tries to bring every thought captive to Jesus Christ and overcome temptation with his help?  Of course not.  Would such a person identify as a "homosexual Christian"?  Of course not.  I struggle with lust on a daily basis but I don't identify as a "lustful Christian."  And I'm not proud of the fact that I struggle with lust.  
> 
> When Sola says "homosexual Christian" he's talking about an unrepentant homosexual who believes his behavior is OK.  He's not talking about someone who is struggling with homosexual desires but agrees with God that these actions are evil and seeks to overcome them.
> 
> Of course, you'd likely still disagree with him, you'd say they are just Christians who are sometimes in mortal sin or whatever, but at least you should understand what he's talking about.  I doubt he's saying a Christian will never struggle with homosexual desires.


There are homosexual Christian communities out there, and if you look into them they basically fall into two categories which they call "Side A" and "Side B", one that views it like you do where they basically resign themselves to celibacy and constantly battle their own sexual nature, and one that has a much more liberal view where homosexual relationships are OK if practiced correctly. It is actually very interesting. But does a particular "incorrect" view about the Bible disqualify people from salvation by grace through faith?

----------


## phill4paul

> There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.


  Or a Calvinist Christian, or a Catholic Christian, or a Protestant Christian....

   Blargh, blargh, blargh.......ya'll spend so much time bitchin' and accusing each other of not being a Christian it makes my head hurt. If the acusers and finger pointers of this forum are any indication of what "Christians" are then I can't see why _anyone_ would wish to call themselves one. Even homosexuals.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are homosexual Christian communities out there, and if you look into them they basically fall into two categories which they call "Side A" and "Side B", one that views it like you do where they basically resign themselves to celibacy and constantly battle their own sexual nature, and one that has a much more liberal view where homosexual relationships are OK if practiced correctly. It is actually very interesting. But* does a particular "incorrect" view about the Bible disqualify people from salvation by grace through faith?*


This is a tricky question.  There are two potential subsets of people here, one group that I believe I'm certain about and the other than I'm not:

On the one hand, there are people who are actually living homosexual lifestyles.  I'd say these people show by their actions that they don't have a Biblical faith.  Same thing with people who murder people overseas with drones.  Living a lifestyle of unrepentant sin is an indicator that one doesn't believe the gospel.

On the other hand , you have people who support wicked acts (say homosexuality) but yet do not personally live a life that is characterized by those sins.  While these people are certainly sinning, I don't know if this proves that they aren't saved for certain or not.  Personally, I'd tell them to repent, if they did I have "won my brother back" but if not I'd have to cut off fellowship from them and pray for them to repent.

----------


## Brett85

> There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.


So I guess you're a works salvationist now.

----------


## acptulsa

> So I guess you're a works salvationist now.


We seem to be getting ignored.

Convenient, that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why do Calvinists evangelize so hard?
> 
> Misery loves company, of course.


 Why do libertarians evangelize so hard?  Should they be banned from debate?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Why do libertarians evangelize so hard?*  Should they be banned from debate?


Because Statists pose a very real threat to humanity with their proclivity toward violence, as we can see in the mass murders in "Iraqistan".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because Statists pose a very real threat to humanity with their proclivity toward violence, as we can see in the mass murders in "Iraqistan".


Rome poses a threat to people.  But the threat that Rome poses is worse than any state has ever posed, because we are dealing with the soul.

----------


## fr33

There are a lot more than 6 things that particular god forbid.

----------


## Influenza

The absence of salvation by works is one of the things that ruins Christianity for me! Well, that and the whole trinity, original sin, god as the son dying, etc, etc, etc. But that's just the opinion of someone who isn't a Christian and never was

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The absence of salvation by works is one of the things that ruins Christianity for me! Well, that and the whole trinity, original sin, god as the son dying, etc, etc, etc. But that's just the opinion of someone who isn't a Christian and never was


That's understandable.   The nature of all the religions of man (including atheism) is to believe that man is righteous by what he does.  This is something that Arminianism, Roman Catholicism,  cults, atheistic secularism, etc all have in common.  The nature of sinful man is to be attracted to works salvationism.

But true religion says that righteousness comes from completely outside of man...from God alone.  The natural man hates this truth,  because it takes away his autonomy.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Or a Calvinist Christian, or a Catholic Christian, or a Protestant Christian....
> 
>    Blargh, blargh, blargh.......ya'll spend so much time bitchin' and accusing each other of not being a Christian it makes my head hurt. If the acusers and finger pointers of this forum are any indication of what "Christians" are then I can't see why _anyone_ would wish to call themselves one. Even homosexuals.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again."

Stop making so much sense.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again."
> 
> Stop making so much sense.


This^^

----------


## Deborah K

> Assuming for argument's sake that your belief is a choice, regardless of what you choose though, is it possible to choose something that was not God's will for you to choose? If so, I am still having trouble reconciling that with God's omnipotence. How could anything happen in the entire creation that isn't God's plan?
> 
> And yes, belief in God is definitely a source of happiness and fulfillment for many. Although I would argue other people derive fulfillment from other religions or other sources as well, and happiness/fulfillment is not a compelling reason to believe in something



This is where the rubber meets the road for me.  Do I believe that God's plan is for some of his children to go to hell? No, I don't believe that.  Anymore than I believe a parent wants to see their child going down the wrong path to drug addiction, or prison.  Do I believe God has total control?  Yes I do.  But I also believe he is willing to let the chips fall where they may _because_ he created us with free will.

----------


## Deborah K

> LOL!
> Eternal damnation is one HELL of a boo-boo!


Eternal damnation is a choice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is where the rubber meets the road for me.  *Do I believe that God's plan is for some of his children to go to hell?* No, I don't believe that.  Anymore than I believe a parent wants to see their child going down the wrong path to drug addiction, or prison.  Do I believe God has total control?  Yes I do.  But I also believe he is willing to let the chips fall where they may _because_ he created us with free will.


OK... we disagree in that we don't believe the non-elect are God's children.

----------


## Influenza

> That's understandable.   The nature of all the religions of man (including atheism) is to believe that man is righteous by what he does.  This is something that Arminianism, Roman Catholicism,  cults, atheistic secularism, etc all have in common.  The nature of sinful man is to be attracted to works salvationism.
> 
> But true religion says that righteousness comes from completely outside of man...from God alone.  The natural man hates this truth,  because it takes away his autonomy.


I understand that point of view, thanks, but what I dislike is how many people (I don't want to say Christians as I may be falsely characterizing someone) think that "accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" and believing that "Jesus died for my sins" give them blank checks to do whatever the hell they want.

----------


## Nang

> Eternal damnation is a choice.


Adam chose the fate of all his offspring.  

Only God has the power to reverse the fate of all men, by writing many in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Who God does not choose to spare, go to hell.    Revelation 20:15

Rather than boast about the power of your will, you should cast yourself prostrate before God Almighty and plead for His grace and mercy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I understand that point of view, thanks, but what I dislike is how many people (I don't want to say Christians as I may be falsely characterizing someone) think that "accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" and believing that "Jesus died for my sins" give them blank checks to do whatever the hell they want.


No.  "Accept Jesus" is the popular false gospel today.  No Christian believes in the "accept Jesus" false gospel.

----------


## moostraks

> Adam chose the fate of all his offspring.  
> 
> Only God has the power to reverse the fate of all men, by writing many in the Lamb's Book of Life.
> 
> Who God does not choose to spare, go to hell.    Revelation 20:15
> 
> Rather than boast about the power of your will, you should cast yourself prostrate before God Almighty and plead for His grace and mercy.


Alternative viewpoint:



> Technically speaking, in their writings the Eastern Fathers and Orthodox theologians do not use the Latin term introduced by Augustine in his treatise “De Peccato originali”, but instead translate this concept by means of two cognate terms in Greek, namely, progoniki amartia and to propatorikon amartima, which is properly translated “ancestral sin”. These terms allow for a more careful nuancing of the various implications contained in the one Latin term.[1
> With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West is: In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” or “ancestral” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first” or “ancestral”. Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” or “ancestral sin”.[2] In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved. In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, which is death.[3]
> John Karmiris writes that “the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, ‘no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day’”.[4]
> The Orthodox Church cannot agree with Augustine, when he says that humans are under a “harsh necessity” of committing sin in his City of God. The image of God is distorted by sin but never destroyed and because we still retain the image of God we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope. Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for freedom. However, we agree with the West that sin had set up a barrier which humanity by its own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, He came to us. With all that said I do recommend works of Augustine for Orthodox believers.
> It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam’s personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity, we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “The imparting of “First Sin/Ancestral Sin/ Original Sin” by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: ‘Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption’”


http://www.neamericandiocese.org/ort...ginal-sin.aspx

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No.  "Accept Jesus" is the popular false gospel today.  No Christian believes in the "accept Jesus" false gospel.


Again, I don't like that terminology, but I won't say someone is not Christian just because they use that terminology.  Of course, that doesn't believe everyone, or even most people, who use that terminology is saved.  But a Christian can describe the true gospel using bad terminology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again, I don't like that terminology, but I won't say someone is not Christian just because they use that terminology.  Of course, that doesn't believe everyone, or even most people, who use that terminology is saved.  But a Christian can describe the true gospel using bad terminology.


FF, "accept Jesus" is the false gospel of Billy Graham Arminianism.  It is the false gospel of man's will and man's effort.  Don't be misled.

I posted a great article by John Robbins called "What The Gospel Is, What The Gospel Isn't".  Read that. ..it talks about this.

----------


## acptulsa

> Rather than boast about the power of your will, you should cast yourself prostrate before God Almighty and plead for His grace and mercy.


Should she choose to do this of her own free will?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Should she choose to do this of her own free will?

----------


## Nang

> Should she choose to do this of her own free will?



Yes, _she should._  But her will is not freed to do so, or she would do it.

"Jesus answered and said, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.

Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.'"  John 8:34-36

The response I described above, is the response of every son of God; who has been freed in heart, mind, and will to love God.

Those freed by the Spirit of God to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, do not boast this occurs due to their will power.  These
freed by Jesus Christ worship and praise Him . . _as they should._

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, "accept Jesus" is the false gospel of Billy Graham Arminianism.  It is the false gospel of man's will and man's effort.  Don't be misled.


Billy Graham is a heretic, but that doesn't mean a new Christian will always describe the gospel using perfect Biblical terminology.  Don't be misled into being overly judgmental



> I posted a great article by John Robbins called "What The Gospel Is, What The Gospel Isn't".  Read that. ..it talks about this.


Where did you post it?

I don't think John Robbins went quite as far as you with regards to judging Arminians to be lost either.  Based on other things he said I think he'd probably agree with me here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Should she choose to do this of her own free will?


Again....it's just another statement that displays you don't understand the concepts that we are talking about.   You're cracking yourself up over there with your little quips that you think are so clever, but the people who know what they are talking about are not responding to it because it displays a lack of understanding.

----------


## Nang

> Billy Graham is a heretic, but that doesn't mean a new Christian will always describe the gospel using perfect Biblical terminology.  Don't be misled into being overly judgmental
> 
> 
> Where did you post it?
> 
> I don't think John Robbins went quite as far as you with regards to judging Arminians to be lost either.  Based on other things he said I think he'd probably agree with me here.


Heh, have you ever read what he thought of R.C. Sproul?

It is in the archives at Trinity Foundation.

----------


## Deborah K

"I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home forgiven!  For the proud shall be humbled, but the humble shall be honored."

Luke 18: 14

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, _she should._  But her will is not freed to do so, or she would do it.
> 
> "Jesus answered and said, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
> And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.
> 
> Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.'"  John 8:34-36
> 
> The response I described above, is the response of every son of God; who has been freed in heart, mind, and will to love God.
> 
> ...


Beautifully stated.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, _she should._  But her will is not freed to do so, or she would do it.


Oh.

Poor thing.  Condemned to eternal torture (which I have on _your_ authority), without hope, damned, can't do a thing about it.

Well, you can do what you want, but I think _I'll_ show her some compassion and avoid insulting and haranguing her.  As long as you've condemned her, she might as well try to get a little enjoyment now, before the torment begins.




> Again....it's just another statement that displays you don't understand the concepts that we are talking about.   You're cracking yourself up over there with your little quips that you think are so clever, but the people who know what they are talking about are not responding to it because it displays a lack of understanding.


Quite so.

And thank you for responding to it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home forgiven!  For the proud shall be humbled, but the humble shall be honored."
> 
> Luke 18: 14


Yes, not the one who was self righteously proud about his works, but only the only who leaned on God's mercy ALONE went home justified. 

Do you read the Bible or not?  Don't you see that the one who wasn't justified was the one who was confident in his works?

----------


## Deborah K

"But I say: Love your enemies!  Pray for those who persecute you."  Mathew 5: 44

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "But I say: Love your enemies!  Pray for those who persecute you."  Mathew 5: 44


Yes.  I pray for all of you who persecute me.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, not the one who was self righteously proud about his *works*...  Do you read the Bible or not?  Don't you see that the one who wasn't justified was the one who was confident in his *works*?


Do _you_ read the Bible?  Or do you just read things into it?




> 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that *exalteth himself* shall be abased; and he that *humbleth himself* shall be exalted.


Jesus didn't say anything about his works.  His boastful mouth, yes.  Not his works.

Seems to me exalting oneself over one's lack of works would spark Jesus' ire just as fast.  Of course I can't _speak_ for Jesus.  But I can read the Bible without subconsciously inserting any superfluous verbiage inside Jesus' quotation marks.




> Yes.  I pray for all of you who persecute me.


Thank you so much!  And do you pray we will endure fewer attacks, so we don't have to gird our armor and respond in kind in self-defense so often?

----------


## Deborah K

"Yes, woe upon you Pharisees, and you other religious leaders - hypocrites!  For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but ignore the important things - justice and mercy and faith......you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."

Mathew 23: 24-24

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes.  I pray for all of you who persecute me.


Anyone remember when you were a kid and there was this one boy down the street who was constantly picking fights, losing them, and then whining about how persecuted he was all the time?

Wonder what ever became of that boy..?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Heh, have you ever read what he thought of R.C. Sproul?
> 
> It is in the archives at Trinity Foundation.


I haven't.  I'll look it up.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Anyone remember when you were a kid and there was this one boy down the street who was constantly picking fights, losing them, and then whining about how persecuted he was all the time?
> 
> Wonder what ever became of that boy..?


Except on this forum its way more than one...

----------


## TER

> Jesus didn't say anything about his works.  His boastful mouth, yes.  Not his works.


Exactly.  Christ used this parable to demonstrate the evil of pride and the goodness of humility.  In this instance, he used the Pharisee as an example because the Pharisee was on all account a good and faithful servant of God, following the law as prescribed by God and the fathers, paying tithe, avoiding evils, praying the proscribed prayers, all the WORKS which are pleasing to God and which brought him honor and prestige.  But all of these things he squandered away on account of his pride and his judgment of the publican.  

Christ never condemned the Pharisee because of his efforts and works in obeying the law, in fact, he used the Pharisee in the parable to characterize what things indeed _do_ please the Lord.  What led to the Pharisees' condemnation and loss of the blessings he could have received on account of his righteousness was because of his pride, self-love, and judgement of the sinner.  The Pharisee should have done those things he was doing _without_ forgetting humility, mercy, and love, and instead of condemnation he would have been called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Exactly.  Christ used this parable to demonstrate the evil of pride and the goodness of humility.  In this instance, he used the Pharisee as an example because the Pharisee was on all account a good and faithful servant of God, following the law as prescribed by God and the fathers, paying tithe, avoiding evils, praying the proscribed prayers, all the WORKS which are pleasing to God and which brought him honor and prestige.  But all of these things he squandered away on account of his pride and his judgment of the publican.  
> 
> Christ never condemned the Pharisee because of his efforts and works in obeying the law, in fact, he used the Pharisee in the parable to characterize what things indeed _do_ please the Lord.  What led to the Pharisees' condemnation and loss of the blessings he could have received on account of his righteousness was because of his pride, self-love, and judgement of the sinner.  The Pharisee should have done those things he was doing _without_ forgetting *humility, mercy, and love*, and instead of condemnation he would have been called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.


I believe humility, mercy, and love should be thought about every time we make a post.   I know I'm guilty of forgetting about them on occasion.

----------


## Deborah K

> Exactly.  Christ used this parable to demonstrate the evil of pride and the goodness of humility.  In this instance, he used the Pharisee as an example because the Pharisee was on all account a good and faithful servant of God, following the law as prescribed by God and the fathers, paying tithe, avoiding evils, praying the proscribed prayers, all the WORKS which are pleasing to God and which brought him honor and prestige.  But all of these things he squandered away on account of his pride and his judgment of the publican.  
> 
> Christ never condemned the Pharisee because of his efforts and works in obeying the law, in fact, he used the Pharisee in the parable to characterize what things indeed _do_ please the Lord.  What led to the Pharisees' condemnation and loss of the blessings he could have received on account of his righteousness was because of his pride, self-love, and judgement of the sinner.  The Pharisee should have done those things he was doing _without_ forgetting humility, mercy, and love, and instead of condemnation he would have been called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.


This is how I view those verses as well.  Very beautifully stated, my brother.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yet you say that Roman Catholics are saved because they were baptized.  You're judging based on baptism, not based on the gospel.  I don't see how I can say you believe the gospel when you are saying that people are saved by baptism.


FreedomFanatic, to be in the New Covenant is salvation. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, but baptism doesn't justify itself. There are promises attached to it, just as there were with circumcision in the Old Covenant. Yes, baptism brings us into new life with Jesus Christ, by faith in what He has redeemed us from. Listen to what Paul says in Romans 6:3-4:




> Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.


Because we are baptized into Christ, we are new creatures, and therefore, we should be walking as sons of God because we have been cleansed by Christ's atoning work. That is what baptism is a sign of. It's not the water, in and of itself, that saves us, just as it's not ink and paper that causes us to believe the Bible. Baptismal regeneration believes that it is *by reason of the water used* that it makes a person saved. Baptism in the Bible always has the Spirit and the Word accompanying it to administer the promises of salvation, and like I've said before, it's not the water that does anything autonomously. God uses earthly means to bring about His heavenly ends.

The problem is with many Reformed Christians is that they "water down" baptism (mind the pun). Baptism has become so insignificant in many Reformed circles that it has, basically, been reduced to nothing more than a wet dedication. Yet, the Bible uses so many instances of baptism in ways that would make Reformed Christians uncomfortable. And that's the problem. They have allowed the Reformed confessions to cloud their reading and assumptions about what the Bible actually teaches about baptism.

Consider the fact that the terms "water" and Spirit" occur together so many times in Scripture. For instance, right in the first chapter of Genesis, in Verse 2, we read, "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. *And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters*." That is a common theme throughout the Bible. In Exodus 14:21, God used a strong wind (which is what the Spirit is like) to divide the waters of Red Sea. John 3:5 tells us that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Titus 3:5 says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, *by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost*. On and on I could go with passages that tie in "water" with the "Spirit." I think God is showing us a theme there, when it comes to baptism, and I believe, as even some Reformed confessions state (like the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, Chapter XXVIII, Paragraph VI) that the Holy Spirit comes upon the recipient who is baptized. That's not baptismal regeneration, at least not in the sacerdotal sense. I just think you need to be careful on how you judge the efficacy of baptism, because the Bible has an awful lot to say about it.




> What H-word?  Heretic?  Yes, baptismal regeneration is heresy.
> 
> I have no doubt you know the scriptures more thoroughly than I do.  Heck, eduardo may as well.  So what?  That's not really the point.  Its not about how much scripture you know or can quote.  I don't judge based on that.  I judge based on the GOSPEL.  One can know the gospel without (directly) knowing any scripture at all, and someone can have the entire Bible memorized without actually knowing what the gospel is.  
> 
> Salvation is by faith alone in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone.  This is completely incompatible with baptismal regeneration of any kind.  I understand that this is offensive, but its the truth.  See Romans 4:5 and John 3:18.


Perhaps we need to understand what we both believe the Gospel entails because I think we may be arguing on two sides of the same coin here. Just to push this point a little bit, I will say up front that if one believes that the Gospel is "justification by faith," then that person is wrong about the Gospel. Justification by faith is true, and it needs to be defended, but it is not the core of the Gospel. After all, "justification by faith" does not justify itself as a separate proposition; rather, it is true only because it points to Christ. There are people, even Roman Catholics, who do not understand "justification by faith," and yet, they are justified, nonetheless, because they are trusting in Christ alone. So, I'm just throwing that out there, in case your idea of the Gospel encompasses that doctrine.

To me, the core of the Gospel is union with Christ. He has saved me (because of His "active" and "passive" obedience); He has washed me, by baptism and the Spirit; and He has brought me into fellowship with Him by making me a covenant member of His Body, the Church. If I am not connected to Him, then I am not saved. He is my King, my Lord, my Savior, my God, and there is none other. It is only in union with Christ that I can have fellowship within the Trinity, that eternal Fellowship of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is what I consider to be the heart of the Gospel, but there are other doctrines (like "justification by faith") which tie into that, of course.

----------


## acptulsa

> (mind the pun)


Yes I do.  

And thanks for asking!  

Yes, the line between literal and metaphor in the Bible keeps things interesting, does it not?  But what can you do?  Have we invented enough words yet to truly describe God?

In any case, I don't know why we kill each other over rituals when they're clearly there to help _us_ understand.  God certainly doesn't need them.




> Then He said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.'


Peacemaker blessings to you today, brother.

----------


## TER

> FreedomFanatic, to be in the New Covenant is salvation. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, but baptism doesn't justify itself. There are promises attached to it, just as there were with circumcision in the Old Covenant. Yes, baptism brings us into new life with Jesus Christ, by faith in what He has redeemed us from. Listen to what Paul says in Romans 6:3-4:
> 
> Because we are baptized into Christ, we are new creatures, and therefore, we should be walking as sons of God because we have been cleansed by Christ's atoning work. That is what baptism is a sign of. It's not the water, in and of itself, that saves us, just as it's not ink and paper that causes us to believe the Bible. Baptismal regeneration believes that it is *by reason of the water used* that it makes a person saved. Baptism in the Bible always has the Spirit and the Word accompanying it to administer the promises of salvation, and like I've said before, it's not the water that does anything autonomously. God uses earthly means to bring about His heavenly ends.
> 
> The problem is with many Reformed Christians is that they "water down" baptism (mind the pun). Baptism has become so insignificant in many Reformed circles that it has, basically, been reduced to nothing more than a wet dedication. Yet, the Bible uses so many instances of baptism in ways that would make Reformed Christians uncomfortable. And that's the problem. They have allowed the Reformed confessions to cloud their reading and assumptions about what the Bible actually teaches about baptism.
> 
> Consider the fact that the terms "water" and Spirit" occur together so many times in Scripture. For instance, right in the first chapter of Genesis, in Verse 2, we read, "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. *And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters*." That is a common theme throughout the Bible. In Exodus 14:21, God used a strong wind (which is what the Spirit is like) to divide the waters of Red Sea. John 3:5 tells us that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Titus 3:5 says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, *by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost*. On and on I could go with passages that tie in "water" with the "Spirit." I think God is showing us a theme there, when it comes to baptism, and I believe, as even some Reformed confessions state (like the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, Chapter XXVIII, Paragraph VI) that the Holy Spirit comes upon the recipient who is baptized. That's not baptismal regeneration, at least not in the sacerdotal sense. I just think you need to be careful on how you judge the efficacy of baptism, because the Bible has an awful lot to say about it.
> 
> Perhaps we need to understand what we both believe the Gospel entails because I think we may be arguing on two sides of the same coin here. Just to push this point a little bit, I will say up front that if one believes that the Gospel is "justification by faith," then that person is wrong about the Gospel. Justification by faith is true, and it needs to be defended, but it is not the core of the Gospel. After all, "justification by faith" does not justify itself as a separate proposition; rather, it is true only because it points to Christ. There are people, even Roman Catholics, who do not understand "justification by faith," and yet, they are justified, nonetheless, because they are trusting in Christ alone. So, I'm just throwing that out there, in case your idea of the Gospel encompasses that doctrine.
> ...


Theo is starting to get it.  

May the Lord continue to guide you my friend.

----------


## phill4paul

> Theo is starting to get it.


  Does he still think that unrepentant gays should be executed?

----------


## Kevin007

Billy Graham has won more people to Christ then every person reading these forums for all time. Of course the HS is the instrument but Mr. Graham was used by God. No doubt about it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Billy Graham has won more people to Christ then every person reading these forums for all time. Of course the HS is the instrument but Mr. Graham was used by God. No doubt about it.


Billy Graham is a heretic: he does not believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.  See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE

This is the danger of Arminianism, it leads to inclusivism because if God "wants" to save all, there's always this nagging question of why exactly doesn't he?

While I don't doubt some people were saved through Billy Graham's ministry, I don't believe the numbers at all.  He preaches an easy, watered down message that is easy for unregenerate people to accept.

----------


## eduardo89

> Billy Graham is a heretic: he does not believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.  See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE


He didn't say that Jesus isn't the only way to Heaven or that there is another way to Heaven.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FreedomFanatic, to be in the New Covenant is salvation. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, but baptism doesn't justify itself. There are promises attached to it, just as there were with circumcision in the Old Covenant. Yes, baptism brings us into new life with Jesus Christ, by faith in what He has redeemed us from. Listen to what Paul says in Romans 6:3-4:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are baptized into Christ, we are new creatures, and therefore, we should be walking as sons of God because we have been cleansed by Christ's atoning work. That is what baptism is a sign of. It's not the water, in and of itself, that saves us, just as it's not ink and paper that causes us to believe the Bible. Baptismal regeneration believes that it is *by reason of the water used* that it makes a person saved. Baptism in the Bible always has the Spirit and the Word accompanying it to administer the promises of salvation, and like I've said before, it's not the water that does anything autonomously. God uses earthly means to bring about His heavenly ends.
> 
> The problem is with many Reformed Christians is that they "water down" baptism (mind the pun). Baptism has become so insignificant in many Reformed circles that it has, basically, been reduced to nothing more than a wet dedication. Yet, the Bible uses so many instances of baptism in ways that would make Reformed Christians uncomfortable. And that's the problem. They have allowed the Reformed confessions to cloud their reading and assumptions about what the Bible actually teaches about baptism.
> 
> Consider the fact that the terms "water" and Spirit" occur together so many times in Scripture. For instance, right in the first chapter of Genesis, in Verse 2, we read, "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. *And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters*." That is a common theme throughout the Bible. In Exodus 14:21, God used a strong wind (which is what the Spirit is like) to divide the waters of Red Sea. John 3:5 tells us that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Titus 3:5 says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, *by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost*. On and on I could go with passages that tie in "water" with the "Spirit." I think God is showing us a theme there, when it comes to baptism, and I believe, as even some Reformed confessions state (like the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, Chapter XXVIII, Paragraph VI) that the Holy Spirit comes upon the recipient who is baptized. That's not baptismal regeneration, at least not in the sacerdotal sense. I just think you need to be careful on how you judge the efficacy of baptism, because the Bible has an awful lot to say about it.
> ...


I wouldn't say justification by faith IS the gospel.  I would say that its an essential COMPONENT of the gospel.  But yes, of course you could believe in justification by faith, and yet have the wrong object of faith and not ever be saved.  The object of our faith is Jesus Christ, who as you say is king, Lord, and Savior.  I also agree that if you aren't connected to Christ you aren't saved.  Where I would differ from you is where you say that water baptism has some direct relation to the connection, and I would also deny that anyone who believes in works salvation in any way to any degree is connected.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He didn't say that Jesus isn't the only way to Heaven or that there is another way to Heaven.


Yes he did.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes he did.


Give me the exact quote where he says people can be saved apart from Jesus.

----------


## Christian Liberty

He says that people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ can be saved.  By contrast, Jesus Christ himself says that he who does not believe is condemned already.  Billy Graham has grown attached to the world, it is clear by his quotes that he has no clue what the gospel is. 

You're trying to separate being saved by Christ from faith in Christ.  This isn't Biblical.  Faith is the instrument through which God imputes grace (Ephesians 2:8.)  Period.

----------


## Crashland

> He says that people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ can be saved.  By contrast, Jesus Christ himself says that he who does not believe is condemned already.  Billy Graham has grown attached to the world, it is clear by his quotes that he has no clue what the gospel is. 
> 
> You're trying to separate being saved by Christ from faith in Christ.  This isn't Biblical.  Faith is the instrument through which God imputes grace (Ephesians 2:8.)  Period.


What do you think of the fate of those who lived before Jesus? Was Abraham saved?
Gen 15:6 "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness."

----------


## Nang

> Billy Graham is a heretic: he does not believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.  See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE
> 
> This is the danger of Arminianism, it leads to inclusivism because if God "wants" to save all, there's always this nagging question of why exactly doesn't he?
> 
> While I don't doubt some people were saved through Billy Graham's ministry, I don't believe the numbers at all.  He preaches an easy, watered down message that is easy for unregenerate people to accept.


Our late Pastor, Rev. Wilson Rinker, came out of seminary (Westminster, PA) with his Doctorate, at the same time that Graham first appeared publicly, and our Pastor ( who met Graham personally) testified to us that at the time, it was well known that Graham had been politically recruited, groomed, and financed by the RCC, to be their ecumenical tool to propagandize and thereby lure Protestants back to the Roman Catholic faith. 

Take the anecdote for what it is worth . . .

----------


## eduardo89

> He says that people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ can be saved.  By contrast, Jesus Christ himself says that he who does not believe is condemned already.


You can believe without having ever heard Christ's name.




> You're trying to separate being saved by Christ from faith in Christ.  This isn't Biblical.  Faith is the instrument through which God imputes grace (Ephesians 2:8.)  Period.


Christ can save anyone He wants. He will judge us all, and He will decide who will be saved.

But I'll ask again, show me where Graham said there is another path to salvation which is not Jesus Christ.

----------


## Nang

> What do you think of the fate of those who lived before Jesus? Was Abraham saved?
> Gen 15:6 "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness."



Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ!  Abraham was given the promises of the Messiah and gifted with faith to believe in the Christ who would come, from the provision of God, to redeem all His seed.    Genesis 22:14-18

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you think of the fate of those who lived before Jesus? Was Abraham saved?
> Gen 15:6 "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness."


Abram believed in Jesus, he looked forward to his sacrificial death rather than looking back.  But he still believed the same gospel.  Billy Graham's "body of Christ" consisting of Muslims and Hindus, on the other hand.




> Our late Pastor, Rev. Wilson Rinker, came out of seminary (Westminster, PA) with his Doctorate, at the same time that Graham first appeared publicly, and our Pastor ( who met Graham personally) testified to us that at the time, it was well known that Graham had been politically recruited, groomed, and financed by the RCC, to be their ecumenical tool to propagandize and thereby lure Protestants back to the Roman Catholic faith. 
> 
> Take the anecdote for what it is worth . . .


Yikes.  That wouldn't surprise me much, at the very least he's extremely tolerant of Catholicism.  Which is probably why he goes over well on this forum.  I am not a fan.




> You can believe without having ever heard Christ's name.


Romans 10:9.






> Christ can save anyone He wants. He will judge us all, and He will decide who will be saved.


Yes, and those who he has decided to save he GIVES FAITH.  See John 3:18.


> But I'll ask again, show me where Graham said there is another path to salvation which is not Jesus Christ.


You're trying to separate Jesus Christ from BELIEF in Jesus Christ.  It won't work.

----------


## eduardo89

> Romans 10:9.


This does not say that those who have never heard His name cannot be saved. It does not say those who have not heard His name cannot believe in their hearts. Jesus will judge us all, and those who accept Him and have loved Him and loved their neighbour as they love themselves shall be saved.

----------


## Crashland

> Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ!  Abraham was given the promises of the Messiah and gifted with faith to believe in the Christ who would come, from the provision of God, to redeem all His seed.    Genesis 22:14-18


And if God were to grant the same sort of faith to someone today who has never heard the gospel? It sounds to me like all you need is faith in God's provision, not necessarily faith in the exact means that he did it. Because Abraham certainly had faith in God's provision but did not know the first thing about Jesus

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This does not say that those who have never heard His name cannot be saved. It does not say those who have not heard His name cannot believe in their hearts. Jesus will judge us all, and those who accept Him and have loved Him and loved their neighbour as they love themselves shall be saved.


There is nothing in the Bible that says that those who love their neighbors as themselves will be saved.  Please stop misquoting scripture.  How in the world can someone believe something they haven't heard?

----------


## Nang

> And if God were to grant the same sort of faith to someone today who has never heard the gospel? It sounds to me like all you need is faith in God's provision, not necessarily faith in the exact means that he did it. Because Abraham certainly had faith in God's provision but did not know the first thing about Jesus


Abraham believed God's Covenant promise of  the GOSPEL of a future Savior.  Abraham rejoiced to see His day.  Abraham believed in the concept of the Christ, whether he knew the Christ child would be named Jesus or not.  Not the point nor the criteria for Abrahams faith and hopes and assurances in God's providential salvation.

----------


## Nang

> This does not say that those who have never heard His name cannot be saved. It does not say those who have not heard His name cannot believe in their hearts.


Believe ~what~ in their hearts?  Salvation comes only by faith in the *words and promises* of God.  Period.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And if God were to grant the same sort of faith to someone today who has never heard the gospel? It sounds to me like all you need is faith in God's provision, not necessarily faith in the exact means that he did it. Because Abraham certainly had faith in God's provision but did not know the first thing about Jesus


I think the OT saints knew more than most people give them credit for. 

I suppose it might conceivably be possible in theory for someone to have read the Old Testament and know that a Messiah was coming, believe what the Bible teaches about this Messiah (the Pharisees did not, they made a political Messiah in their own image, hence why they rejected the real one) and yet not know that his earthly name was "Jesus" or that he had already come.  i'm not sure, but it seems possible to me.  I say this primarily because, what about people who were saved in the OT period (trusting in the Messiah that was to come) and then their lives overlapped into the NT period?  Its not like they were "unsaved" until they actually heard Jesus literal name.

That's not what Billy Graham is saying though.  That's clearly not what he's saying.  What he's saying is closer to what eduardo is saying, which is that somehow people can "believe" without actually knowing propositions because they have certain godly works.  This is blatantly heretical.

----------


## Crashland

> Abraham believe God's Covenant promise of  the GOSPEL of a future Savior.  Abraham rejoiced to see His day.  Abraham believed in the concept of the Christ, whether he knew the Christ child would be named Jesus or not.  Not the point nor the criteria for Abrahams faith and hopes and assurances in God's providential salvation.


If Abraham (and presumably many of the pre-Jesus Jews) could believe in the "concept of the Christ" and be saved without actually knowing about Jesus, why can't people today do the same? Why do Jews today not have a similar saving faith, since they too trust in God's provision and they trust in the concept of the Christ.

----------


## eduardo89

> There is nothing in the Bible that says that those who love their neighbors as themselves will be saved.  Please stop misquoting scripture.  How in the world can someone believe something they haven't heard?


God's saving grace is not limited to words in a book. And yes, we must follow Christ's commandments, the most important is to love God above everything else.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> God's saving grace is not limited to words in a book. And yes, we must follow Christ's commandments,* the most important is to love God above everything else.*


I'm pretty sure that commandment is twofold- love thy neighbor as thyself and love God with your whole heart, mind, and strength.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm pretty sure that commandment is twofold- love thy neighbor as thyself and love God with your whole heart, mind, and strength.


Christ's First Commandment is to love God. His Second Commandment is to love our neighbour as ourself.




> 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, *“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment.* 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Christ's First Commandment is to love God. His Second Commandment is to love our neighbour as ourself.


Ah, you're right.  Спасибо. ~hugs~

----------


## acptulsa

> There is nothing in the Bible that says that those who love their neighbors as themselves will be saved.  Please stop misquoting scripture.  How in the world can someone believe something they haven't heard?


..



> 31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
> 
> 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
> 
> 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
> 
> 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
> 
> 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God's saving grace is not limited to words in a book. And yes, we must follow Christ's commandments, the most important is to love God above everything else.


Who, in the history of man, has loved God with all of their heart mind and strength and loved their neighbor as theirself?

----------


## robert68

> We were created with free will.  We choose to do the things which God hates.


Where did the will to do things "God Hates" come from?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Where did the will to do things "God Hates" come from?


The world, the flesh, and the devil.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where did the will to do things "God Hates" come from?


Why do you go on with someone who is clearly caught up in contradictions?  Why don't you have a discussion with someone who has a consistent Christian philosophy?

----------


## robert68

> The world, the flesh, and the devil.


Where did _they_ come from?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why do you go on with someone who is clearly caught up in contradictions?  Why don't you have a discussion with someone who has a consistent Christian philosophy?


How quickly thou dost forget the forum guidelines!




> Due to the controversial nature of religious topics, users must avoid getting into disrespectful fights that only divide our members for unneeded reasons. 
> 
> The Site Usage Guidelines include the following statement:*Be respectful of others' religion or lack thereof
> 
> While this sounds simple enough, it does deserve some further explanation for those interested:
> The Site Usage Guidelines are intended for all parties to come to the table on equal footing here, there is no preferred class or group. In an effort to show respect for others' religion one should consider elements such as being respectful of their beliefs and doctrine which includes associated deities, worship, ceremonies, individuals, writings, symbols, icons and the like. Further, in an effort to show respect for others' religion or lack of religion one should not cast judgement against them, declare their afterlife disposition or the like.
> 
> 
> If you wish to engage in debate and be critical of others religion, or lack thereof, it is important that you:
> ...

----------


## moostraks

> Christ's First Commandment is to love God. His Second Commandment is to love our neighbour as ourself.


True...yet, with:

I John 4: 20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

So it seems they are so intertwined as to be a chicken/egg argument. Imo I would say since He is Love, we cannot love others without knowing Him, as He is the very love we know when we love our neighbor. So we know those who do not love their neighbor do not know the Lord, because if they knew the Lord, then they would be loving their neighbor and be evidencing the gifts of the Spirit. Which is why the sheep and the goats get separated by the evidence of their actions in the acts of love their life shows.

I think there are some who concern themselves with the method of the how this occurs so much that they have depersonalized their fellow man and evidence what their relationship is with the Spirit. They have thought themselves right out of the very love they believe they are saved by. So they will be the ones at the end saying, "but Lord!" as he tells them to depart from Him. They have head knowledge but lack love. (This has often been my failure I fear)

Love, to me, is defined by the sacrifice He willingly gave for us. He didn't behave arrogantly. He willingly gave of Himself even though those closest to Him in the flesh still were argumentative and slow to understanding, still dealing with their prior beliefs. And we are called to this same love as He loved us. To be patient, to know those whom we speak to just as He intimately formed relationships, and strive to see others succeed more than we are concerned with our own needs and desires. 

Thankfully, we are forgiven for our confessed failures...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> God's saving grace is not limited to words in a book. And yes, we must follow Christ's commandments, the most important is to love God above everything else.


Your reference  to the Bible as "a book" is telling.  The Bible straight up says that nobody who does not believe is saved.  This is so obvious, but your church has perverted "Don't judge" to the point where you're too blind to see it.  

Nobody is denying that we are to follow God's commandments.  Do you specialize in red herrings?  Now, please show us one person that has followed God's commandments perfectly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where did _they_ come from?


Good question Robert.  Where did they come from Annie?

----------


## eduardo89

> Your reference  to the Bible as "a book" is telling.  The Bible straight up says that nobody who does not believe is saved.


I agree, no one who does not believe can be saved. I never said otherwise.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree, no one who does not believe can be saved. I never said otherwise.


Believe what?  Your church?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Believe what?  Your church?


Regardless to ed's answer to that question, we were talking about Billy Graham, who did indeed say that people who don't believe can be saved.

----------


## eduardo89

> Regardless to ed's answer to that question, we were talking about Billy Graham, who did indeed say that people who don't believe can be saved.


Where did he say that? Show me the quote.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where did he say that? Show me the quote.


Listen to the video and figure it out for yourself.  If you can't see it than I cannot help you.

----------


## eduardo89

> Listen to the video and figure it out for yourself.  If you can't see it than I cannot help you.


You're the one making the claim. Show me the quote where he says that those who do not believe can be saved apart from Christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

He says that there are people outside Christianity who have never heard the name of Jesus that are nonetheless saved and going to be with us in heaven.

----------


## eduardo89

> He says that there are people outside Christianity who have never heard the name of Jesus that are nonetheless saved and going to be with us in heaven.


Is God incapable of saving them? Will they not be judged by Christ at the Last Judgment? 

This is what you said:


> Billy Graham is a heretic: he does not believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.  See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE


Where did Billy Graham say in that clip that Jesus is not the only way to Heaven? Show me the quote.

----------


## acptulsa

> He says that there are people outside Christianity who have never heard the name of Jesus that are nonetheless saved and going to be with us in heaven.


How can your heart be so set on finding heretics to burn that your otherwise functional head is so adamant about abandoning logic?

When we stand on the Judgement Day, those people who had never heard of Jesus will stand before Him too.  And they will see, and they will hear, and they will believe, and He will judge them as He sees fit.  And I'm glad.  I don't want Him to listen to you, and I don't want Him to listen to me either.

And no one will get through the Gates but through Him.

Why on earth could He _not_ make that come to pass?

----------


## Theocrat

> Who, in the history of man, has loved God with all of their heart mind and strength and loved their neighbor as theirself?


How about these passages?




> *And if thou wilt walk before Me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee and wilt keep My statutes and My judgments*, then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, "There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel." [1 Kings 9:4-5 - emphasis mine]





> And the LORD said unto Satan, "Hast thou considered My servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, *a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil*?" [Job 1:8 - emphasis mine]





> There was in the days of Herod, the King of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. *And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.* [Luke 1:5-6 - emphasis mine]


My brother, you call yourself a Biblical Christian, so can we believe what the Scriptures testify of those people above, contrary to your original question?

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Haughtiness
> Lying
> Murdering
> Plotting evil
> Eagerness to do wrong
> A false witness
> Sowing discord among brothers
> 
> Proverbs 6: 16-19
> ...


Thoughts, words, and actions.  A tough roe to hoe and line to toe.

*Free to fail* by my own flawed self, *or*, _free to succeed_ (live a God pleasing life) by trusting in perfect Love.

_Free to fail..._what's another example of _free to fail_...?   (posts# 3 & 4) 

Society can have a police state to "combat murder" and all the crap that leads up to it or you can have *me* police *myself* as the Word of God and Christ's sacrifice hones *my* conscience.  The Word of God speaks to the _individual_ through _love_ and is the antithesis of a police state (_force_).

Peace through religion _faith_ while promoting the individual -there ya go.

----------


## Deborah K

If either of you three come in here and attack him for his beliefs, you'd better be ready for the consequences.

----------


## Deborah K

> Thoughts, words, and actions.  A tough roe to hoe and line to toe.
> 
> *Free to fail* by my own flawed self, *or*, _free to succeed_ (live a God pleasing life) by trusting in perfect Love.
> 
> _Free to fail..._what's another example of _free to fail_...?   (posts# 3 & 4) 
> 
> Society can have a police state to "combat murder" and all the crap that leads up to it or you can have *me* police *myself* as the Word of God and Christ's sacrifice hones *my* conscience.  The Word of God speaks to the _individual_ through _love_ and is the antithesis of a police state (_force_).
> 
> Peace through religion _faith_ while promoting the individual -there ya go.


Actually, I kinda like "peace through faith" better.  Good idea!

----------


## RJB

> My brother, you call yourself a Biblical Christian, so can we believe what the Scriptures testify of those people above, contrary to your original question?


  That would take faith that God could accomplish the impossible.

----------


## Deborah K

> Where did the will to do things "God Hates" come from?


 God created us with free will.  So our will comes from God.  The question then becomes:  Why would God create us just to condemn us?  Answer: He didn't, we do it to ourselves when we don't take our guidance from him, and he allows it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is God incapable of saving them?


No, the Bible says that he will not.




> Will they not be judged by Christ at the Last Judgment?



Yes, and by their works they will be condemned.



> This is what you said:
> 
> Where did Billy Graham say in that clip that Jesus is not the only way to Heaven? Show me the quote.


He says that people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ are saved and going to be with us in heaven.  This clearly means that belief in Christ is not required (according to Billy Graham.



> How can your heart be so set on finding heretics to burn


Whoa whoa whoa... when did I say anything about burning anybody?  I believe in free speech and free religion.  The fact that I think Billy Graham is a heretic doesn't mean I believe that I believe any force should be used against him.  But then, you knew that.  You're trolling.




> When we stand on the Judgement Day, those people who had never heard of Jesus will stand before Him too.  And they will see, and they will hear, and they will believe, and He will judge them as He sees fit.  And I'm glad.  I don't want Him to listen to you, and I don't want Him to listen to me either.


I don't want him to listen to me.  I know he'll listen to his own word, which says that those who don't believe will be condemned, and that it is appointed to man to die once, and then to judgment.




> And no one will get through the Gates but through Him.


Yes, and the only way through him is through FAITH IN HIM.  Period.  There is no other way.



> Why on earth could He _not_ make that come to pass?


He could.  But he chose to give all of his own a belief in the gospel.  



> If either of you three come in here and attack him for his beliefs, you'd better be ready for the consequences.


Why would I do that?  Come to think of it, why would I care about your petty threats either?  You think anyone here is afraid of you?

----------


## eduardo89

> He says that people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ are saved and going to be with us in heaven.  This clearly means that belief in Christ is not required (according to Billy Graham.


No, it does not. And you are just moving the goalposts now. This was what you originally claimed:


> Billy Graham is a heretic: he does not believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven.  See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How about these passages?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My brother, you call yourself a Biblical Christian, so can we believe what the Scriptures testify of those people above, contrary to your original question?


Good examples.  Isaac should be in there for good measure, IMO.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, it does not. And you are just moving the goalposts now. This was what you originally claimed:


Sorry.  In my mind those two things are pretty much equivalent.  I forgot that you guys thought that faith could exist without propositions.  I'll be more careful to word things in such a way as not to confuse you in the future.

----------


## Southron

> How about these passages?


So you think men have perfectly kept those two commandments?

How do you reconcile that with Romans 3:23? 

I think if I committed any sin, it would be proof that I did not love God with all my being.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you think men have perfectly kept those two commandments?
> 
> How do you reconcile that with Romans 3:23? 
> 
> I think if I committed any sin, it would be proof that I did not love God with all my being.


I agree.  

There are men in the Bible who are "holy" in the sense that they do not live lives of habitual sin.  But even then, they still sin, and the only reason they are sanctified to the point that they are is because God has changed their hearts and minds.

Here's the thing though, the standard for righteousness is not the righteousness of Abraham, Job, Noah, and so many other blameless men in  the OT.  The standard is ABSOLUTE PERFECTION.  Only the righteousness of Jesus Christ, received through faith, can satisfy God's wrath.  If you don't believe in this imputed righteousness, you do not have it.  If you don't have it, your imperfect efforts at loving others and loving God will never help you.

----------


## Theocrat

> So you think men have perfectly kept those two commandments?
> 
> How do you reconcile that with Romans 3:23? 
> 
> I think if I committed any sin, it would be proof that I did not love God with all my being.


No, I do not believe in "sinless perfection" (with the exception of the God-Man, Jesus Christ), so I don't think they kept God's commandments perfectly. However, it's important to remember that when those believers sinned, they were consistent and faithful to God by offering the necessary sacrifices which would atone for their sins, thus, showing true repentance; they didn't take pleasure in their sins by allowing it to linger on and making a habit of sinning. When David sinned against God, for example, he repented, crying out to God for mercy. And God heard him, and continued to bless him all his days. Saul, on the other hand, sinned against God, but then he allowed bitterness and envy to grow in his heart, causing him to eventually fall away from God. In those two cases, David showed himself to be righteous by his faith that God would deliver him from his guiltiness, thus, he was perfect (or blameless). Saul showed himself to be wicked because he turned away from God's grace by continuing to live unto himself, ignoring God's commandments. Thus, Saul was not perfect (or blameless). Do you see the difference?

----------


## phill4paul

> No, I do not believe in "sinless perfection" (with the exception of the God-Man, Jesus Christ), so I don't think they kept God's commandments perfectly. However, it's important to remember that when those believers sinned, they were consistent and faithful to God by offering the necessary sacrifices which would atone for their sins, thus, showing true repentance; they didn't take pleasure in their sins by allowing it to linger on and making a habit of sinning. When David sinned against God, for example, he repented, crying out to God for mercy. And God heard him, and continued to bless him all his days. Saul, on the other hand, sinned against God, but then he allowed bitterness and envy to grow in his heart, causing him to eventually fall away from God. In those two cases, David showed himself to be righteous by his faith that God would deliver him from his guiltiness, thus, he was perfect (or blameless). Saul showed himself to be wicked because he turned away from God's grace by continuing to live unto himself, ignoring God's commandments. Thus, Saul was not perfect (or blameless). Do you see the difference?


  Do you consider the slaughtering of unrepentant gays as a proper sacrifice?

----------


## Theocrat

> Do you consider the slaughtering of unrepentant gays as a proper sacrifice?





> If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [Leviticus 20:13]





> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things. Wherefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves, who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections, for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and, likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. [Romans 1:18-27]


Your problem is not with me but with God.

----------


## phill4paul

> Your problem is not with me but with God.


  So, I'll take that as a yes.

----------


## Theocrat

> So, I'll take that as a yes.


And I'll take your original question as absurd, given the fact that you don't believe that man has a soul, which reduces him to nothing more than subatomic particles, created from "stardust." So, I don't even know how you can make sense of ethical laws that you try to appeal to when judging "the civil punishment of homosexuals" as "evil," since particles cannot be "ethical," nor can ethical laws be made up of subatomic particles (because laws are universal, abstract, and invariant entities).

You have no ultimate basis for any of your moral judgments against me, phill4paul. Your judgments are nothing more than the result of random, electrochemical processes of your anatomy, no more significant than a fart or a burp, given the demands of your worldview. *So, why so serious?*

----------


## phill4paul

> And I'll take your original question as absurd, given the fact that you don't believe that man has a soul, which reduces him to nothing more than subatomic particles, created from "stardust." So, I don't even know how you can make sense of ethical laws that you try to appeal to when judging "the civil punishment of homosexuals" as "evil," since particles cannot be "ethical," nor can ethical laws be made up of subatomic particles (because laws are universal, abstract, and invariant entities).
> 
> You have no ultimate basis for any of your moral judgments against me, phill4paul. Your judgments are nothing more than the result of random, electrochemical processes of your anatomy, no more significant than a fart or a burp, given the demands of your worldview. *So, why so serious?*


  There are many here that are new and don't know of your positions regarding your particular "bent" of Christianity. I thought they should be informed of it  so that they could put your Christian admonitions in context. Thank you for admitting it. Now others can go forward, regarding your ministrations, with this knowledge in mind.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are many here that are new and don't know of your positions regarding your particular "bent" of Christianity. I thought they should be informed of it  so that they could put your Christian admonitions in context. Thank you for admitting it. Now others can go forward, regarding your ministrations, with this knowledge in mind.


@Theo- Why do you think the Old Testament law against homosexuality should be applied today?  Note that I refer to the penalty, not the immorality of the action.

I understand that Romans 1 says homosexuality is deserving of death.  But Romans 1 also mentions several other sins as being deserving of death.  It seems clear to me that Romans 1 is referring to spiritual death, not the death penalty.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And I'll take your original question as absurd, given the fact that you don't believe that man has a soul, which reduces him to nothing more than subatomic particles, created from "stardust." So, I don't even know how you can make sense of ethical laws that you try to appeal to when judging "the civil punishment of homosexuals" as "evil," since particles cannot be "ethical," nor can ethical laws be made up of subatomic particles (because laws are universal, abstract, and invariant entities).
> 
> You have no ultimate basis for any of your moral judgments against me, phill4paul. Your judgments are nothing more than the result of random, electrochemical processes of your anatomy, no more significant than a fart or a burp, given the demands of your worldview. *So, why so serious?*


+rep  universities keep science and ethics separate for a reason. (science is value-free by nature)

----------


## phill4paul

> +rep  universities keep science and ethics separate for a reason. (science is value-free by nature)


  Human beings are not an university experiment. We are complex. I do not need Christ to have a view of moral ethics. I simply have my _need_ to have moral ethics. My moral ethics fall along the N.A.P. I do not feel the need to kill individuals for some perceived religious belief if they are non-aggressive. Whether homosexual or infidel. Nor do abide by those who do.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Human beings are not an university experiment. We are complex.


Exactly!  We are not beings that exist without context or complexity.  Hence the need for study of both sciences and ethics (ideally religion and philosophy as well).




> I do not need Christ to have a view of moral ethics. I simply have my _need_ to have moral ethics. My moral ethics fall along the N.A.P. I do not feel the need to kill individuals for some perceived religious belief if they are non-aggressive. Whether homosexual or infidel. Nor do abide by those who do.


Sure.  But you do need Christ to rationalize your view.  Not going to rehash this issue as it's been done at length around here.  Just sayin'...

----------


## phill4paul

> But, *I believe*, you do need Christ to rationalize your view.


  FTFY.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> FTFY.


That's not a fix, bro.  Unless you became God today, you (nor anything/anyone of the world) can't be a rational standard of truth.  You simply lack the omniscience/omnipotence required for the job.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly!  We are not beings that exist without context or complexity.  Hence the need for study of both sciences and ethics (ideally religion and philosophy as well).
> 
> 
> Sure.  But you do need Christ to rationalize your view.  Not going to rehash this issue as it's been done at length around here.  Just sayin'...



It's not as though "you need Christ to make the NAP rational".  It's that atheistic presuppositions cannot determine the morality of ANY position.   

Instead of playing defense against unbelieving worldviews, go on the OFFENSIVE against them and destroy their irrational foundations.

Of course, you can only do this when you have a faith and philosophy that is Biblical...so that would be the first step.  Eastern Orthodoxy will not provide this.

----------


## phill4paul

> That's not a fix, bro.  Unless you became God today, you (nor anything/anyone of the world) can't be a rational standard of truth.  You simply lack the omniscience/omnipotence required for the job.


  You are throwing your religion off on me as if it is proven and irrefutable. Now, you may _believe_ that it is. However, others _believe_ that their religion is proven and irrefutable. While others still believe that _no_ religion is proven and therefore refutable. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with our _personal_ beliefs. That is all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *You are throwing your religion off on me as if it is proven and irrefutable.* Now, you may _believe_ that it is. However, others _believe_ that their religion is proven and irrefutable. While others still believe that _no_ religion is proven and therefore refutable. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with our _personal_ beliefs. That is all.


Not at all.  Even an atheist would agree with the quote you posted.  Man is fallible and by nature cannot be a standard of truth.  As I said before, get back to me when you develop omniscience and omnipotence-then we'll talk.

----------


## phill4paul

> Not at all.  Even an atheist would agree with the quote you posted.  Man is fallible and by nature cannot be a standard of truth.  As I said before, get back to me when you develop omniscience and omnipotence-then we'll talk.


  And get back to me when you have obtained the same.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And get back to me when you have obtained the same.


Will do. ~hugs~  Till you come up with the evidence for your claim, we'll consider the debate won by yours truly.

----------


## phill4paul

> Will do. ~hugs~  Till you come up with the evidence for your claim, we'll consider the debate won by yours truly.


  You may, certainly, _believe_ that.   Hugz back, you kung-fu nutter.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *You may, certainly, believe that*.   Hugz back, you kung-fu nutter.


And I do, for it be true!   I ain't got much rank in kung fu, so IDK if I can be considered a kung-fu nutter...

----------


## Theocrat

> @Theo- Why do you think the Old Testament law against homosexuality should be applied today?  Note that I refer to the penalty, not the immorality of the action.
> 
> I understand that Romans 1 says homosexuality is deserving of death.  But Romans 1 also mentions several other sins as being deserving of death.  It seems clear to me that Romans 1 is referring to spiritual death, not the death penalty.


There is nothing in the New Testament that abrogates the civil penalties against homosexuality in the Old Testament. However, I do believe that we must be careful in how we apply those civil sanctions of the Old Testament because we must read them through the revelation of Jesus Christ, in wisdom because He is our Wisdom. That's what kings do; they utilize wisdom to execute the laws among the people. David and Solomon are great examples of that.

----------


## Theocrat

> Human beings are not an university experiment. We are complex. I do not need Christ to have a view of moral ethics. I simply have my _need_ to have moral ethics. My moral ethics fall along the N.A.P. I do not feel the need to kill individuals for some perceived religious belief if they are non-aggressive. Whether homosexual or infidel. Nor do abide by those who do.





> It's not as though "you need Christ to make the NAP rational".  It's that atheistic presuppositions cannot determine the morality of ANY position.   
> 
> Instead of playing defense against unbelieving worldviews, go on the OFFENSIVE against them and destroy their irrational foundations.
> 
> Of course, you can only do this when you have a faith and philosophy that is Biblical...so that would be the first step.  Eastern Orthodoxy will not provide this.


Yes, phill4paul, and all of history's most notorious dictators had "their need" for moral ethics, too. Is that really a sound basis for establishing ethical laws? Of course not! You say that your "moral ethics" fall along the NAP, but *so what?* Why _should_ Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Pilate, or Nero, or Stalin, or Amin, or Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Obama follow the NAP, if all there is is just "matter in motion," in accordance with your naturalistic assumptions? You simply keep taking it for granted that there is some sort of "moral ethics" out there that you can latch onto, and yet, your worldview says that the universe just is what it is (studied through the supposed impartial means of the scientific method), with no values that ought to be imposed upon it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, phill4paul, and all of history's most notorious dictators had "their need" for moral ethics, too. Is that really a sound basis for establishing ethical laws? Of course not! You say that your "moral ethics" fall along the NAP, but *so what?* Why _should_ Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Pilate, or Nero, or Stalin, or Amin, or Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Obama follow the NAP, if all there is is just "matter in motion," in accordance with your naturalistic assumptions? You simply keep taking it for granted that there is some sort of "moral ethics" out there that you can latch onto, and yet, your worldview says that the universe just is what it is (studied through the supposed impartial means of the scientific method), with no values that ought to be imposed upon it.


+rep

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is nothing in the New Testament that abrogates the civil penalties against homosexuality in the Old Testament. However, I do believe that we must be careful in how we apply those civil sanctions of the Old Testament because we must read them through the revelation of Jesus Christ, in wisdom because He is our Wisdom. That's what kings do; they utilize wisdom to execute the laws among the people. *David* and Solomon are great examples of that.


Have to be kind of careful with David...he's somewhat inconsistent in his wisdom (recall that he ordered Uriah's death so that he could take Bathsheba for himself-2 Samuel 11).  I like Solomon better.  If you haven't read it, I recommend the Wisdom Of Solomon (non-canonical to Protestants, so you'll have to find an Orthodox or Catholic bible if you don't have one).

----------


## Deborah K

Theo, did you see Bryan's thread?  Do you want to participate?

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, did you see Bryan's thread?  Do you want to participate?


I've seen it, but I'm not going to participate (as of yet). I think there will be Christians who I find agreement with on many issues, as they talk to Bryan about "unfavorable religions."

Why? Do you think I should participate?

----------


## Deborah K

> I've seen it, but I'm not going to participate (as of yet). I think there will be Christians who I find agreement with on many issues, as they talk to Bryan about "unfavorable religions."
> 
> Why? Do you think I should participate?


I respect your decision.  If, however, you find certain religions unfavorable or worse, you should participate in the exercise because it will help Bryan ascertain how to improve the religion forum.  That's the goal.  To clean this place up, work out the problems between certain sects, learn how to get along and debate without warring, etc.  Not that you do that.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yes, phill4paul, and all of history's most notorious dictators had "their need" for moral ethics, too. Is that really a sound basis for establishing ethical laws? Of course not! You say that your "moral ethics" fall along the NAP, but *so what?* Why _should_ Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Pilate, or Nero, or Stalin, or Amin, or Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Obama follow the NAP, if all there is is just "matter in motion," in accordance with your naturalistic assumptions? You simply keep taking it for granted that there is some sort of "moral ethics" out there that you can latch onto, and yet, your worldview says that the universe just is what it is (studied through the supposed impartial means of the scientific method), with no values that ought to be imposed upon it.


  I have no need to "latch on" to any moral ethic. The moral ethic I have resides within myself. My moral ethic believes that I should not kill someone for their political or religious views,  personal benefit, supposed moral belief, gender, nationality or any of the reasons that Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Pilate, or Nero, or Stalin, or Amin, or Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Obama _chose_ and _choose_ to.
  It is my belief that _your_ moral view is much more aligned with these historical figures. In that you would advocate the murder of another for something other than self-defense. Murder for the sake of believing that homosexuality is a sin in your God's eyes worthy of death unless repentant. And yet you would attempt to proselytize to me your beliefs. Believing that your views on the order of the universe are somehow superior. Sorry, I'm just not going to buy into it.

----------


## phill4paul

> I've seen it, but I'm not going to participate (as of yet). I think there will be Christians who I find agreement with on many issues, as they talk to Bryan about "unfavorable religions."
> 
> Why? Do you think I should participate?


  Please, do. And particularly mention specifics how states rights equate to being able to execute homosexuals that are unrepentant to _your_ God. I think that would be a rather fine discussion between the two of you.

----------


## Theocrat

> I have no need to "latch on" to any moral ethic. The moral ethic I have resides within myself. My moral ethic believes that I should not kill someone for their political or religious views,  personal benefit, supposed moral belief, gender, nationality or any of the reasons that Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Pilate, or Nero, or Stalin, or Amin, or Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Obama _chose_ and _choose_ to.
>   It is my belief that _your_ moral view is much more aligned with these historical figures. In that you would advocate the murder of another for something other than self-defense. Murder for the sake of believing that homosexuality is a sin in your God's eyes worthy of death unless repentant. And yet you would attempt to proselytize to me your beliefs. Believing that your views on the order of the universe are somehow superior. Sorry, I'm just not going to buy into it.


"Murder" assumes that there is an absolute, universal moral law, by which you can judge it as "evil" in comparison to its opposite virtue. However, you have not established nor justified this moral law.

What you've done, instead, is a classic error of moral relativists by making ethical judgments "first-person relative." You've stated, "The moral ethic I have resides within myself that I should not kill someone for their political or religious views..." Okay, but what if I employed that same reasoning to justify my ethical views on the civil punishment of homosexuals, by saying, "The moral ethic that I have resides within myself. My moral ethic believes that it is okay for homosexuals to be tried, convicted, and capitally-punished for the immoral, sexual drives that reside within them"? Would that really be a sound argument for justifying the "rightness" or "wrongness" of my internal moral ethic? Of course not. Just because something is morally right to a person, as an individual, does not make it universally moral or true, as an ethical standard by which all people are expected to live, phill4paul. In Logic, that's called a hasty generalization.

Your argument, then, is not only fallacious, but it really does not describe how you feel about the nature of "moral ethics." The fact that you expect me to agree with you on murder (and the definition you ascribe to it) as being wrong (so that my views on the civil punishment of homosexuals might change, perhaps) reveals to me that you don't believe that ethics are "first-person relative." You're appealing to ethics as a universal standard by which, even "crazy theocrats" are expected to adhere to, if they wish to be morally sound. And my contention is you have no ultimate basis to appeal to them as such (because of your materialistic presuppositions), all the while treating them as universals. In short, you're being both arbitrary and inconsistent.

----------


## phill4paul

> "Murder" assumes that there is an absolute, universal moral law, by which you can judge it as "evil" in comparison to its opposite virtue. However, you have not established nor justified this moral law.
> 
> What you've done, instead, is a classic error of moral relativists by making ethical judgments "first-person relative." You've stated, "The moral ethic I have resides within myself that I should not kill someone for their political or religious views..." Okay, but what if I employed that same reasoning to justify my ethical views on the civil punishment of homosexuals, by saying, "The moral ethic that I have resides within myself. My moral ethic believes that it is okay for homosexuals to be tried, convicted, and capitally-punished for the immoral, sexual drives that reside within them"? Would that really be a sound argument for justifying the "rightness" or "wrongness" of my internal moral ethic? Of course not. Just because something is morally right to a person, as an individual, does not make it universally moral or true, as an ethical standard by which all people are expected to live, phill4paul. In Logic, that's called a hasty generalization.
> 
> Your argument, then, is not only fallacious, but it really does not describe how you feel about the nature of "moral ethics." The fact that you expect me to agree with you on murder (and the definition you ascribe to it) as being wrong (so that my views on the civil punishment of homosexuals might change, perhaps) reveals to me that you don't believe that ethics are "first-person relative." You're appealing to ethics as a universal standard by which, even "crazy theocrats" are expected to adhere to, if they wish to be morally sound. And my contention is you have no ultimate basis to appeal to them as such (because of your materialistic presuppositions), all the while treating them as universals. In short, you're being both arbitrary and inconsistent.


  If your argument were true there would only be one world religion and its adherents. All others would have long since perished to the dominating belief system. Since there is not then your belief, I believe, is the fallacious one.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If your argument were true there would only be one world religion and its adherents. All others would have long since perished to the dominating belief system. Since there is not then your belief, I believe, is the fallacious one.


This is quite a claim!   I'm not convinced that you are correct from the information you've provided.  Moar, plz.  (Committing the fallacy fallacy as you did just doesn't do the trick for me...)

----------


## Theocrat

> If your argument were true there would only be one world religion and its adherents. All others would have long since perished to the dominating belief system. Since there is not then your belief, I believe, is the fallacious one.


That's not necessarily true. The main ingredient that you've forgotten about is *sin*. Sinful men have rebelled and continue to rebel against God, seeking after their own lusts, their own ways, and their own theories about this life. Since men refuse to submit to the triune God and obey Him because He is their Creator, that has led to all sorts of confusion and misery in this world, especially in the area of ethics. That accounts for why there are so many people who derive ethics from within themselves (just as you do) instead of looking to God as the foundation for ethical law. Those same people even try to use the morals derived from within themselves to judge God's ethical laws, and in so doing, those people are making themselves the arbiters of right and wrong. In short, they are claiming to be God. Our culture and society, today, has become very polytheistic, in that regard.

----------


## otherone

> That's not necessarily true. The main ingredient that you've forgotten about is *sin*. Sinful men have rebelled and continue to rebel against God, seeking after their own lusts, their own ways, and their own theories about this life. Since men refuse to submit to the triune God and obey Him because He is their Creator, that has led to all sorts of confusion and misery in this world, especially in the area of ethics. That accounts for why there are so many people who derive ethics from within themselves (just as you do) instead of looking to God as the foundation for ethical law. Those same people even try to use the morals derived from within themselves to judge God's ethical laws, and in so doing, those people are making themselves the arbiters of right and wrong. In short, they are claiming to be God. Our culture and society, today, has become very polytheistic, in that regard.


You speak as if today is worse than 10 years, 50 years, or 500 years ago.

----------


## Theocrat

> You speak as if today is worse than 10 years, 50 years, or 500 years ago.


No, things have been good and bad throughout history (some eras better than others). There's always this recurring cycle of "death and resurrection" of people and civilizations. The point in my last reply to phill4paul was simply to explain why the world isn't under a unified world faith, even though I believe God has given us universal ethical laws. Ethical individualism is a key component to that.

----------


## otherone

> No, things have been good and bad throughout history (some eras better than others). There's always this recurring cycle of "death and resurrection" of people and civilizations. The point in my last reply to phill4paul was simply to explain why the world isn't under a unified world faith, even though I believe God has given us universal ethical laws. Ethical individualism is a key component to that.


Is your point contingent on the idea that death and resurrection cycles exist?  In that the "good" times people are more in accordance with God's law?

----------


## Theocrat

> Is your point contingent on the idea that death and resurrection cycles exist?  In that the "good" times people are more in accordance with God's law?


Yes, but that is not to say that during those good eras of history that people get everything right, nor do civilizations create the "perfect" society. I will say that it has been the Christian Church that has led the way in those times of "resurrection" in history.

----------


## otherone

> Yes, but that is not to say that during those good eras of history that people get everything right, nor do civilizations create the "perfect" society. I will say that it has been the Christian Church that has led the way in those times of "resurrection" in history.


So when you speak of these historical good times, you are only speaking of Western Civilization? Or does what a small portion of mankind do in one part of the world affect  the entirety of mankind, across the globe?

----------


## Theocrat

> So when you speak of these historical good times, you are only speaking of Western Civilization? Or does what a small portion of mankind do in one part of the world affect  the entirety of mankind, across the globe?


I'm simply saying that whenever and wherever the Church has been faithful to God in any part of history, that society or civilization has thrived in peace, prosperity, and liberty, for a time. Humanists cannot do it. Muslims cannot do it. "Orthodox Jews" cannot do it. Buddhists cannot do it. Hindus cannot do it. Only the Christian Church can because the Church has the Gospel, the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Ghost), and the blessed call to go out and make disciples of all nations (which is known as "the Great Commission").

----------


## otherone

> I'm simply saying that whenever and wherever the Church has been faithful to God in any part of history, that society or civilization has thrived in peace, prosperity, and liberty, for a time.


Examples?

----------


## Theocrat

> Examples?


Western Civilization, as a whole. It was founded on the worldview of Christianity, for the most part. Hospitals, orphanages, local churches, private schools, alms-houses, soup kitchens, and other societal acts of compassion that, through the Gospel, took care of the neglected and needy were some of the initial ways that prosperity and liberty flourished in Western Civilization. Calvinism had much influenced in all of that, too, especially in the field of economics.

----------


## otherone

> Western Civilization, as a whole. It was founded on the worldview of Christianity, for the most part. Hospitals, orphanages, local churches, private schools, alms-houses, soup kitchens, and other societal acts of compassion that, through the Gospel, took care of the neglected and needy were some of the initial ways that prosperity and liberty flourished in Western Civilization. Calvinism had much influenced in all of that, too, especially in the field of economics.


You feel these acts of compassion outweigh the feudalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, slavery, colonialism and the countless wars that characterize the history of western civilization?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You feel these acts of compassion outweigh the feudalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, slavery, colonialism and the countless wars that characterize the history of western civilization?


There are precious few major civilizations without history of that.  (it's a failing of man, sadly)  What's unique about Western civilization is enlightened thought.  It was made possible primarily because of Christian endeavors.  Ever heard of The European Miracle?  There are a number of reasons it happened, but it most definitely would not have happened without Christian influence.

----------


## RJB

> You feel these acts of compassion outweigh the feudalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, slavery, colonialism and the countless wars that characterize the history of western civilization?


The west has been relatively peaceful and free compared to Mideast, East, and the far east.  In recent times communism has every prior civilization beat based on atrocities committed.

----------


## otherone

> The west has been relatively peaceful and free compared to Mideast, East, and the far east.


That's a bold statement!
source?

----------


## otherone

> Ever heard of The European Miracle?  There are a number of reasons it happened, but it most definitely would not have happened without Christian influence.


You call the expansion of European power caused by pillaging indigenous peoples a "miracle"?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You feel these acts of compassion outweigh the feudalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, slavery, colonialism and the countless wars that characterize the history of western civilization?


Much of what you describe was a result of Roman Catholic statism, not Christianity.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You feel these acts of compassion outweigh the feudalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, slavery, colonialism and the countless wars that characterize the history of western civilization?


Probably because the feudalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, slavery, colonialism and the countless wars would exist with or without western civilization or religion of any type.  That Christianity failed to curtail some them any faster than it finally did, or that it has failed to reduce some of them at all, is a pretty shameful discredit of course; but no insinuation that Christianity has caused or exacerbated the problems you cite can follow from the premise that they exist amongst Western civilization.

On the other hand, those acts of compassion are in the nature of Christ, can be traced directly to commandments related by Christ Himself, and are clearly written into Scriptures as requirements to do.  Therefore it does follow logically (mind you, only on orders of probability, given the nature of sociology) that those items were the result of a Christian influence.

_Failure to stop_ "a, b, c;" is a sign of cowardice and individual immorality more than evidence of ineffectiveness.  _Actual production of_ "d, e, f;" with d, e, and f being actively required by the nature of the dominant faith can be tied easily to the influence of that faith.

I certainly wish the faithful would have been more faithful to the principles of the faith throughout history.  If they had and were, then many many of the ills that have plagued us to this very day would simply never be.  Today we have a problem with the "Christian Right" presuming the doctrines of the Pharisees as though they came from Christ.  Many of the problems we have today with an immoral society come from these pharisees legislating against behaviors and merely driving them underground to fester instead of facing the disinfecting light of the sun.

The very problems they attempt to correct, they continue to make worse because they are not listening to God, they are listening to their own flesh and presuming the godliness of their own will, as though it had come from God.  By 2020, marriage in NC will be 2-fold more immoral than it would have had we never touched it, and 10-fold more immoral than had they taken my suggestion to give it back to God and ban the State licensure of marriage altogether.  The more adamantly you remove God and replace Him with man, the more desperate the immorality will become.  Which should be obvious, except these folks seriously believe that removing God and replacing Him with men, is somehow doing God's will.

----------


## otherone

> Probably because the feudalism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, slavery, colonialism and the countless wars would exist with or without western civilization or religion of any type.  That Christianity failed to curtail some them any faster than it finally did, or that it has failed to reduce some of them at all, is a pretty shameful discredit of course; _but no insinuation that Christianity has caused or exacerbated the problems you cite can follow from the premise that they exist amongst Western civilization.
> _


Not my point.  Theocrat made this statement:



> I'm simply saying that whenever and wherever the Church has been faithful to God in any part of history, that society or civilization has thrived in peace, prosperity, and liberty, for a time.


and used Western Civilization as an example of God bestowing his blessings based on this culture behaving in accordance with His law.  Do you agree with him?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not my point.  Theocrat made this statement:
> 
> 
> and used Western Civilization as an example of God bestowing his blessings based on this culture behaving in accordance with His law.  Do you agree with him?


No, I wouldn't say it was a result of God bestowing His blessing upon the society, given that these societies have failed on far more than they have succeeded.  However, YES, those things came from INDIVIDUALS who were in God and acting according to His will, therefore the faithful (and thus the faith) are arguably responsible for their emergence.

----------


## otherone

> those things came from INDIVIDUALS who were in God and acting according to His will, therefore the faithful (and thus the faith) are arguably responsible for their emergence.


What things?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What things?


The things we were talking about.


> Hospitals, orphanages, local churches, private schools, alms-houses, soup kitchens, and other societal acts of compassion that, through the Gospel, took care of the neglected and needy were some of the initial ways that prosperity and liberty flourished in Western Civilization.

----------


## otherone

> The things we were talking about.


thanks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You call the expansion of European power caused by pillaging indigenous peoples a "miracle"?


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_miracle

----------


## otherone

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_miracle


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocentrism

----------


## James Madison

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocentrism


As soon as you lose electricity, you will appreciate European culture. Trust me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocentrism


This has nothing to do with The European Miracle.  It simply happened in Europe.  Had it happened anywhere else, it would be named after that place.  For example, numeric characters are called "arabic numerals" because arab mathematicians invented them.  Such ethnocentrism!

----------


## otherone

> As soon as you lose electricity, you will appreciate European culture. Trust me.


LOL.
I don't believe electricity to be a reward from God for my faithfulness.  Maybe I'm just glomming off of all of y'all.

----------


## James Madison

> LOL.
> I don't believe electricity to be a reward from God for my faithfulness.  Maybe I'm just glomming off of all of y'all.


Neither do I, but I am certainly thankful for Nikola Tesla.

----------


## otherone

> This has nothing to do with The European Miracle.  It simply happened in Europe.  Had it happened anywhere else, it would be named after that place.  For example, numeric characters are called "arabic numerals" because arab mathematicians invented them.  Such ethnocentrism!



You're the one tying God to Western culture's success, yet now it isn't tied to Europe?  wuuuuttt?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're the one tying God to Western culture's success, yet now it isn't tied to Europe?  wuuuuttt?


I tied Western Religion to the West's success (as do most Western Civ historians).  Even Rothbard understood the importance of Christianity in the development of civilization and liberty.  


> The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.

----------


## James Madison

> I tied Western Religion to the West's success (as do most Western Civ historians).  Even Rothbard understood the importance of Christianity in the development of civilization and liberty.


Let us remember that early science was an outgrowth of the university system, brought to light by the Church. Secularism in the sciences is relatively new.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Let us remember that early science was an outgrowth of the university system, brought to light by the Church. Secularism in the sciences is relatively new.


Yes, that too^^

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Double predestination and salvation by faith alone aren't found in the Bible, but you believe in those...


Well-played, comrade.

----------

