The Views of Arminius
freder...@yahoo.com
Michael Broadhead wrote:
> Hello,
> I am new to this group, but I will throw
> in my 2 cents. As a one time Calvinist
> (no longer), I am still somewhat
> influenced by that view regarding
> free will (though not as rigid). I believe
> that the central issue being ignored is
> God's sovereignity.
Michael, it seems to me that the logical fallacy in Calvin's argument is
found in Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XXI,
5. Calvin kicks off this chapter by proposing, "No one who wishes to be
thought religious dares simply deny predestination, by which God adopts
some to hope of life, and sentences others to eternal death. But our
opponents, especially those who make foreknowledge its cause, envelop it
in numerous petty objections. We, indeed, place both doctrines in God,
but we say that subjecting one to the other is absurd."
What Calvin wishes to do is erect a Chinese Wall between God's
foreknowledge and His decree of predestination. While denying neither,
he wishes to argue they are two completely distinct phenomena, in no way
linked in a causal chain. Please note the manner in which he proceeds
to do so: he proves, quite properly, from scripture, that predestination
cannot be based on foreknowledge *of merit*. That's it. Did you catch
that? It's a false dichotomy. He wishes to prove the thesis, a.)
'Predestination cannot be premised on God's foreknowledge.' He then
proceeds to prove, successfully, that, b.) 'Predestination cannot be
premised on God's foreknowledge *of merit*.' Having proved b.), he then
sails onward as if he had proved a.)! But does b.) exhaust the
possibilities implicit in a.)? Is it not possible that God's relevant
foreknowledge is of something *other* than merit?
It's quite correct that predestination cannot be premised on
foreknowledge *of merit*, or else we'd sink right back into the swamp of
salvation by works, which is explicitly rejected in scripture: "Now to
him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5).
Yet is it Biblically possible that, as Calvin asserts, there is no
causal nexus between predestination and foreknowledge *at all*? NO!
Scripture directly asserts the opposite: "For whom he did foreknow, he
also did predestinate..." (Romans 8:29).
What, other than merit, might God have foreknown which He would adjudge
relevant to His decree of predestination? To give a rather facetious
example, once on TV, Bob Newhart was trying out for a community choral
group, and greatly frustrated by his inability to make the grade. Why,
oh why, wouldn't the lady choral director pick him, when he sang better
than others in the group? Ultimately, the lady revealed the criterion
she was employing to select members: Height. She wished the chorus to
present a pleasing picture when arranged in order by height. So
selection was not based on merit, but solely on height. Suppose we
invent, facetiously, a 'short folks' salvation plan for God to
implement. Say that God, who lifted little David to victory over huge
Goliath, likes short people, and foreknowing who would grow up short,
predestinated those folks to glory. Now, height has nothing in the
world to do with moral merit. Yet if *this* had been God's salvation
plan, foreknowledge would be relevant to salvation: it just wouldn't be
foreknowledge *of merit*.
Thus we see that Calvin has not exhausted all the logical alternatives
in his refutation of a link between foreknowledge and predestination.
Rather, he has selectively refuted *one* possibility - that God's decree
of predestination is based on foreknowledge of *merit* - and floated
victoriously onward, oblivious to the fact he's presented a false
dichotomy. Sadly, Calvin's accustomed lucidity deserted him when he got
to the crux of the matter.
Is it so fanciful that God's decision of predestination could be
influenced, if not determined, by some factor other than merit? Not
really; there's a great deal of information given in scripture about who
God proposes to bless: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in
the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3).
We must beware, however, of basing God's decree of predestination on
consequences of His own works and operations. This would be altogether
circular: it would mean that God predestinated those whom He foreknew He
would predestinate. For foreknowledge to be meaningful, it must be
foreknowledge of something outside of God. This is not a small problem,
as it's God's grace which animates believers and sets their tongues free
to praise Him. Even a believer mouthing a confession of faith is, in
some small part, a ventriloquist's dummy: "Wherefore I give you to
understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus
accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the
Holy Ghost." (1 Corinthians 12:3).
Without wanting to drag this out to unreasonable length, I hope these
considerations give you some insight as to why I disagree with Calvin.
There are other reasons, too: all of the man-made moral philosophies
which have sprung up around this issue bring in extra-Biblical
information from other fields of inquiry. For instance, in order to
establish the supposed total depravity of human nature, Calvin adduces
sociological and anthropological information about the moral stature of
pagans. Is this information accurate and unbiased? *NO*! But that's
another story...
Fredericka
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Theodore M. Seeber
> It's quite correct that predestination cannot be premised on
> foreknowledge *of merit*, or else we'd sink right back into the swamp of
> salvation by works, which is explicitly rejected in scripture: "Now to
> him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
> to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
> ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5).
What about James 2:24? "You see that a person is justified by what he
does, *not by faith alone*". Thus works is not a swamp to sink into, for
once the verse of Romans is interpreted with the verse from James, we find
that Faith and Works are two sides of the same coin, that one cannot exist
without the other.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Click here for your official 1998 IDIC how to be an anarchist spoof:
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/howto.html
Fredericka
It's quite correct that predestination cannot be premised on
foreknowledge *of merit*, or else we'd sink right back into the swamp of
salvation by works, which is explicitly rejected in scripture: "Now to
him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5).
Yet is it Biblically possible that, as Calvin asserts, there is no
Fredericka
> > It's quite correct that predestination cannot be premised on
> > foreknowledge *of merit*, or else we'd sink right back into the swamp of
> > salvation by works, which is explicitly rejected in scripture: "Now to
> > him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
> > to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
> > ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5).
>
> What about James 2:24? "You see that a person is justified by what he
> does, *not by faith alone*". Thus works is not a swamp to sink into, for
> once the verse of Romans is interpreted with the verse from James, we find
> that Faith and Works are two sides of the same coin, that one cannot exist
> without the other.
But this is circular. It's God's very power working within us which
enables us to do good works: "For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10). God "hath before ordained" that
we should walk in good works. So what you're saying is, God
predestinated certain folks to glory...based on the foreknowledge that
He would predestinate them to glory and equip them for good works! For
foreknowledge to be other than trivial, He has to foreknow something
*other* than the power and fruitfulness of His own grace poured out on
His children! Faith is what saves: "Knowing that a man is not justified
by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have
believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified." (Galatians 2:16).
Fredericka
GoldRush
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.02A.98120...@user2.teleport.com>...
> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 freder...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It's quite correct that predestination cannot be premised on
> > foreknowledge *of merit*, or else we'd sink right back into the swamp
of
> > salvation by works, which is explicitly rejected in scripture: "Now to
> > him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
> > to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
> > ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5).
>
> What about James 2:24? "You see that a person is justified by what he
> does, *not by faith alone*". Thus works is not a swamp to sink into, for
> once the verse of Romans is interpreted with the verse from James, we
find
> that Faith and Works are two sides of the same coin, that one cannot
exist
> without the other.
> Ted
>
> mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
> http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
>
> Click here for your official 1998 IDIC how to be an anarchist spoof:
> http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/howto.html
>
>
Ted,
There is a great difference between works-righteousness and
"good works."
The Calvinist believes there is no work a man can do to gain
salvation. There is no merit in man that procures God's favor.
However the regenerated man, justified by the blood of Christ,
and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and having been gifted with
faith produces good works. These are spoken of in Eph. 2:3-10
and in the book of James. These good works are evidence of
salvation. Not a means to salvation.
Big difference, because the former would have to be performed
in the flesh (and it is impossible to please God in the flesh) but
the latter "good works" are ordained of God, and the fruit of the
Holy Spirit.
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
GoldRush
freder...@yahoo.com wrote in article
<74hjct$b6g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
<snipped>
> What Calvin wishes to do is erect a Chinese Wall between God's
> foreknowledge and His decree of predestination. While denying neither,
> he wishes to argue they are two completely distinct phenomena, in no way
> linked in a causal chain.
They are two separate doctrines, and both have their own
cause and effect. Neither one of them caused the other.
Please note the manner in which he proceeds
> to do so: he proves, quite properly, from scripture, that predestination
> cannot be based on foreknowledge *of merit*. That's it. Did you catch
> that? It's a false dichotomy. He wishes to prove the thesis, a.)
> 'Predestination cannot be premised on God's foreknowledge.' He then
> proceeds to prove, successfully, that, b.) 'Predestination cannot be
> premised on God's foreknowledge *of merit*.' Having proved b.), he then
> sails onward as if he had proved a.)! But does b.) exhaust the
> possibilities implicit in a.)? Is it not possible that God's relevant
> foreknowledge is of something *other* than merit?
You are trying to combine two truths. God is omniscient and prescient.
These are attributes of God, and inherent in His being. Predestination
is the cause of His people being saved before the foundation of the world.
His people were chosen not on any merits of their own, but in the divine
purposes and will of God.
<snipped>
> Yet is it Biblically possible that, as Calvin asserts, there is no
> causal nexus between predestination and foreknowledge *at all*? NO!
> Scripture directly asserts the opposite: "For whom he did foreknow, he
> also did predestinate..." (Romans 8:29).
This verse is not giving cause; it is the first in a description of the
process of reconciliation. We see the order of salvation in this
passage; not "causal nexus."
<snipped>
> Thus we see that Calvin has not exhausted all the logical alternatives
> in his refutation of a link between foreknowledge and predestination.
> Rather, he has selectively refuted *one* possibility - that God's decree
> of predestination is based on foreknowledge of *merit* - and floated
> victoriously onward, oblivious to the fact he's presented a false
> dichotomy. Sadly, Calvin's accustomed lucidity deserted him when he got
> to the crux of the matter.
Calvin is wise enough to stop before drifting into speculation
over Godly mysteries. (Read Book 3, Chapter 21 of the Institutes)
>
> Is it so fanciful that God's decision of predestination could be
> influenced, if not determined, by some factor other than merit? Not
> really; there's a great deal of information given in scripture about who
> God proposes to bless: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in
> the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3).
Yes. Predestination could be caused by only the good pleasure
and sovereign purposes of God.
>
> We must beware, however, of basing God's decree of predestination on
> consequences of His own works and operations.
This would be altogether
> circular: it would mean that God predestinated those whom He foreknew He
> would predestinate.
Circular argument in this case, would make perfect sense to us,
because ultimately God is all in all. *Everything* reverts back to
Him by design.
For foreknowledge to be meaningful, it must be
> foreknowledge of something outside of God.
What could possibly be outside of God?!!
(Unless you want to discuss the everlasting lake of fire.)
<snipped>
> Without wanting to drag this out to unreasonable length, I hope these
> considerations give you some insight as to why I disagree with Calvin.
You can disagree with Calvin all you want, but
we do not see you coming up with any better explanations for the
Scriptures that speak of predestination. You have given us no answers
of your own. We find this arrogant on your part. How do
Arminians explain the foreknowledge of God? What cause do they
attribute to predestination? Do they ever stop short of speculation,
themselves?
<snipped>
pau...@worldnet.att.net
>> It's quite correct that predestination cannot be premised on
>> foreknowledge *of merit*, or else we'd sink right back into the swamp of
>> salvation by works, which is explicitly rejected in scripture: "Now to
>> him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
>> to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
>> ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5).
Merit cannot be our judge for salvation.. You cannot watch someone and
make a determinate decision on thier salvation.
However, one who may think they believe in Christ but has no desire
to do things in the Lords name or give credit to all they are to Jesus
may need to look at why that desire is not there.
The demons and the Devil both believe in Christ, but thier actions
show the result of thier desire.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98120...@user2.teleport.com>...
> > What about James 2:24? "You see that a person is justified by what he
> > does, *not by faith alone*". Thus works is not a swamp to sink into, for
> > once the verse of Romans is interpreted with the verse from James, we
> > find
> > that Faith and Works are two sides of the same coin, that one cannot
> > exist
> > without the other.
>
> Ted,
>
> There is a great difference between works-righteousness and
> "good works."
Never even heard of the first.
> The Calvinist believes there is no work a man can do to gain
> salvation. There is no merit in man that procures God's favor.
Of course not. From Grace comes Holy Tradition, From Holy Tradition,
Faith, From Faith Works. Can't run the equation backwards....
> However the regenerated man, justified by the blood of Christ,
> and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and having been gifted with
> faith produces good works. These are spoken of in Eph. 2:3-10
> and in the book of James. These good works are evidence of
> salvation. Not a means to salvation.
I still don't see the difference. Without the evidence of salvation, how
can one have true salvation?
> Big difference, because the former would have to be performed
> in the flesh (and it is impossible to please God in the flesh) but
> the latter "good works" are ordained of God, and the fruit of the
> Holy Spirit.
If it is impossible to please God in the flesh, then why did he decree the
creation of man as "good" in the Book of Genesis?
It seems to me that there are big holes for the Calvinist in scripture
alone.
freder...@yahoo.com
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> > It's quite correct that predestination cannot be premised on
> > foreknowledge *of merit*, or else we'd sink right back into the swamp of
> > salvation by works, which is explicitly rejected in scripture: "Now to
> > him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
> > to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
> > ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5).
>
> What about James 2:24? "You see that a person is justified by what he
> does, *not by faith alone*". Thus works is not a swamp to sink into, for
> once the verse of Romans is interpreted with the verse from James, we find
> that Faith and Works are two sides of the same coin, that one cannot exist
> without the other.
But this is circular. It's God's very power working within us which
enables us to do good works: "For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10). God "hath before ordained" that
we should walk in good works. So what you're saying is, God
predestinated certain folks to glory...based on the foreknowledge that
He would predestinate them to glory and equip them for good works! For
foreknowledge to be other than trivial, He has to foreknow something
*other* than the power and fruitfulness of His own grace poured out on
His children! Faith is what saves: "Knowing that a man is not justified
by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have
believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified." (Galatians 2:16).
Fredericka
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > What about James 2:24? "You see that a person is justified by what he
> > does, *not by faith alone*". Thus works is not a swamp to sink into, for
> > once the verse of Romans is interpreted with the verse from James, we find
> > that Faith and Works are two sides of the same coin, that one cannot exist
> > without the other.
>
> But this is circular. It's God's very power working within us which
> enables us to do good works: "For we are his workmanship, created in
> Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
> should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10). God "hath before ordained" that
> we should walk in good works. So what you're saying is, God
> predestinated certain folks to glory...based on the foreknowledge that
> He would predestinate them to glory and equip them for good works! For
> foreknowledge to be other than trivial, He has to foreknow something
> *other* than the power and fruitfulness of His own grace poured out on
> His children! Faith is what saves: "Knowing that a man is not justified
> by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have
> believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
> Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law
> shall no flesh be justified." (Galatians 2:16).
Of course. But faith without good works is dead, claims James. Thus,
yes, we have a horribly circular argument.
I've long since come to the conclusion that circular arguments and strange
loops are just the human inability to understand eternity.
The DataRat
"...there's a great deal of information given in
scripture about who God proposes to bless:
'Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in the
kingdom of heaven.' (Matthew 5:3)."
We have to take this in context. How do we
reconcile it with Romans 3:10 ?
"There is none righteous; not even one." (NASB)
Being "poor in spirit" is a form of righteousness.
Romans says NONE are righteous. Matthew
states that only those with at least one form of
righteous (humility) shall be saved.
Which is correct ? Is Romans mistaken and
Matthew right ? Or, Matthew in error and Romans
the truth ?
Employing good hermeneutics, we find no
contradiction at all. God ~makes~ those who
He intends to save ( The Elect ) righteous.
"He predestined us in Him... according to the
kind intention of His will" ( Ephesians 1:5 NASB ).
Nothing here about foreknowledge of our future
behavior. Our election is solely based on the
kindness of His intention.
We CAN'T be "poor in spirit" on our own. None
of us are righteous. So, it would be nonsensical
for God to look down the corridors of time to see
who will be "poor in spirit", then deem to save
them. When the Lord looked into the future, what
He saw was that ~none~ are righteous ...except
those He would make that way !
Thus, Election comes first, and imputation of
righteous follows that. We can't be elected
due to God foreseeing our righteousness
...because -without election- none of us would
be righteous !
The DataRat
Fredericka
> > What Calvin wishes to do is erect a Chinese Wall between God's
> > foreknowledge and His decree of predestination. While denying neither,
> > he wishes to argue they are two completely distinct phenomena, in no way
> > linked in a causal chain.
>
> They are two separate doctrines, and both have their own
> cause and effect. Neither one of them caused the other.
God's word suggests differently: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be
the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate,
them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and
whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30). While
there is certainly nothing in heaven or on earth which can *constrain*
God's sovereign will, Paul's account of predestination would nonetheless
suggest there's *something* God foreknows which is of interest to Him in
determining His decree.
> > Please note the manner in which he proceeds
> > to do so: he proves, quite properly, from scripture, that predestination
> > cannot be based on foreknowledge *of merit*. That's it. Did you catch
> > that? It's a false dichotomy. He wishes to prove the thesis, a.)
> > 'Predestination cannot be premised on God's foreknowledge.' He then
> > proceeds to prove, successfully, that, b.) 'Predestination cannot be
> > premised on God's foreknowledge *of merit*.' Having proved b.), he then
> > sails onward as if he had proved a.)! But does b.) exhaust the
> > possibilities implicit in a.)? Is it not possible that God's relevant
> > foreknowledge is of something *other* than merit?
>
> You are trying to combine two truths. God is omniscient and prescient.
> These are attributes of God, and inherent in His being. Predestination
> is the cause of His people being saved before the foundation of the world.
> His people were chosen not on any merits of their own, but in the divine
> purposes and will of God.
<snipped>
You are here indulging in the same false dichotomy so beloved of
Calvin. You say, "His people were chosen not on any merits of their
own, but in the divine purposes and will of God." Who is suggesting
they were chosen based on *merit*? Not me. Yet you imagine you are
refuting what I'm saying by pointing out that predestination cannot be
based on merit. Your logic would hold if there were only two
alternatives: either a.) God predestinates His elect based on
foreknowledge of their merits, or b.) God puts on a blind-fold and
throws darts at a list of names to select His elect; i.e, He chooses
some over others for no reason. These two alternatives, however, do not
exhaust the logical possibilities.
> > Yet is it Biblically possible that, as Calvin asserts, there is no
> > causal nexus between predestination and foreknowledge *at all*? NO!
> > Scripture directly asserts the opposite: "For whom he did foreknow, he
> > also did predestinate..." (Romans 8:29).
>
> This verse is not giving cause; it is the first in a description of the
> process of reconciliation. We see the order of salvation in this
> passage; not "causal nexus."
Why does Paul start the ball rolling with foreknowledge, which,
according to you, is a *totally different* and *unrelated* matter?
> <snipped>
> > Thus we see that Calvin has not exhausted all the logical alternatives
> > in his refutation of a link between foreknowledge and predestination.
> > Rather, he has selectively refuted *one* possibility - that God's decree
> > of predestination is based on foreknowledge of *merit* - and floated
> > victoriously onward, oblivious to the fact he's presented a false
> > dichotomy. Sadly, Calvin's accustomed lucidity deserted him when he got
> > to the crux of the matter.
>
> Calvin is wise enough to stop before drifting into speculation
> over Godly mysteries. (Read Book 3, Chapter 21 of the Institutes)
Calvin puts forth a detailed, complex argument which, to bring
conviction, needs to be logically sound. It ain't.
> > Is it so fanciful that God's decision of predestination could be
> > influenced, if not determined, by some factor other than merit? Not
> > really; there's a great deal of information given in scripture about who
> > God proposes to bless: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in
> > the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3).
>
> Yes. Predestination could be caused by only the good pleasure
> and sovereign purposes of God.
Did He say, 'eenee meenee mini moe'? Why is arbitrary despotism the
only way to protect God's sovereignty? With us creatures, our will
interacts with our knowledge of the world. I look outside, see there's
snow on the ground, and determine to put on my boots. The snow on the
ground does not *compel* or *coerce* my will, but there's an interplay.
I don't give up my autonomy by reacting to the world outside me. Why do
you think it would detract from God's sovereignty if He took some
interest in the thoughts and feelings and dispositions and circumstances
of His creatures? Why is He more majestic if He ignores everything
other than Himself?
> > We must beware, however, of basing God's decree of predestination on
> > consequences of His own works and operations.
>
> > This would be altogether
> > circular: it would mean that God predestinated those whom He foreknew He
> > would predestinate.
>
> Circular argument in this case, would make perfect sense to us,
> because ultimately God is all in all. *Everything* reverts back to
> Him by design.
Calvin respected logic, and would not willingly indulge in circular
argument. His system is not a system of wilful mystification.
It's been suggested that God foreknew the faith of the saints, and on
the basis of faith (which is not merit nor a good work), assembled His
elect. However, this can be somewhat circular, as faith itself is a
gift of God.
Who might have suggested this? "But that which follows, 'Ye therefore
hear them not, because ye are not of God,' was said to those who were
not only corrupted by sin (for this evil was common to all), but also
foreknown as those who would not believe with the faith that alone could
deliver them from the bondage of sin. On this account He foreknew that
those to whom He so spake would continue in that which they derived from
the devil, that is, in their sins, and would die in the impiety in which
they resembled him; and would not come to the regeneration wherein they
would be the children of God, that is, be born of the God by whom they
were created as men." (Augustine, Tractates on John's Gospel, Tractate
42.16). There are folks you seem to dislike who take the same tack.
> > For foreknowledge to be meaningful, it must be
> > foreknowledge of something outside of God.
>
> What could possibly be outside of God?!!
> (Unless you want to discuss the everlasting lake of fire.)
I can hardly believe you meant to say what you've said here. Are you
really a pantheist? The world, while created and upheld by God, is not
God. I think maybe what you meant to say is that there's nothing good
we have which is not a gift of God, like Cyprian said: "We should boast
in nothing, since nothing is ours." Or like Augustine: "Let no one then
flatter himself: in that which is natural to himself he is Satan, in
that which is of God he is blessed. For all that is of his own, whence
comes it, but from his sin? Put away the sin, which is thine own.
Righteousness, He saith, belongeth unto me. For what hast thou that
thou didst not receive?" (Augustine, Commentaries on John's Gospel,
Tractate 49.8).
> <snipped>
> > Without wanting to drag this out to unreasonable length, I hope these
> > considerations give you some insight as to why I disagree with Calvin.
>
> You can disagree with Calvin all you want, but
> we do not see you coming up with any better explanations for the
> Scriptures that speak of predestination. You have given us no answers
> of your own. We find this arrogant on your part.
Oh, my. "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime
receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he
is comforted, and thou art tormented." (Luke 16:25).
You're sitting on a park bench, and notice a bum sharing the adjacent
park bench with a stock-broker in a three-piece suit. A passer-by flips
a quarter to the bum and strides onward. You're astounded: why did the
passer-by give a quarter to the bum and not to the stock-broker? You
set out to investigate the matter with such zeal you even look up the
passer-by's financial records, his 'bible' if you will, which reveal
that *HE DIDN'T OWE EITHER ONE A PENNY*! You're amazed: why did the
passer-by give the quarter to the bum and not the stock-broker? It
can't be on the basis of merit, as *neither* deserved the quarter,
neither having done anything to place the passer-by in his debt. Having
ascertained that merit cannot be the explanation for this asymmetrical
state of affairs, you propose it's an insoluble mystery.
But is it really such a mystery? Maybe the bum asked, or something...
"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no
need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).
Fredericka
freder...@yahoo.com
GoldRush wrote:
Fredericka
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
GoldRush
freder...@yahoo.com wrote in article
<74kltv$vvk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> REPOST
<snipped>
> God's word suggests differently: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did
> predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be
> the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate,
> them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and
> whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30). While
> there is certainly nothing in heaven or on earth which can *constrain*
> God's sovereign will, Paul's account of predestination would nonetheless
> suggest there's *something* God foreknows which is of interest to Him in
> determining His decree.
Well, if you think so, why don't you tell all of us what it might be!
<snipped>
Your logic would hold if there were only two
> alternatives: either a.) God predestinates His elect based on
> foreknowledge of their merits, or b.) God puts on a blind-fold and
> throws darts at a list of names to select His elect; i.e, He chooses
> some over others for no reason. These two alternatives, however, do not
> exhaust the logical possibilities.
These two suppositions are *yours*, and not our logic at all.
> Why does Paul start the ball rolling with foreknowledge, which,
> according to you, is a *totally different* and *unrelated* matter?
We already told you. In the passage of Romans 8:29&30 we see
God's order of salvation.
>
> > <snipped>
> Calvin puts forth a detailed, complex argument which, to bring
> conviction, needs to be logically sound. It ain't.
And we asked you to tell us what you believe and how it is better
theology than Calvin's, but you do not answer us.
<snipped>
> > Yes. Predestination could be caused by only the good pleasure
> > and sovereign purposes of God.
>
> Did He say, 'eenee meenee mini moe'? Why is arbitrary despotism the
> only way to protect God's sovereignty?
You disappoint us with this kind of silliness. We said nothing about
"arbitrary despotism." You admit your own mindset and opinion of God.
With us creatures, our will
> interacts with our knowledge of the world. I look outside, see there's
> snow on the ground, and determine to put on my boots. The snow on the
> ground does not *compel* or *coerce* my will, but there's an interplay.
An interplay between you and the snow? Amazing!
> I don't give up my autonomy by reacting to the world outside me. Why do
> you think it would detract from God's sovereignty if He took some
> interest in the thoughts and feelings and dispositions and circumstances
> of His creatures? Why is He more majestic if He ignores everything
> other than Himself?
You are the only one claiming He does.
<snipped>
"But that which follows, 'Ye therefore
> hear them not, because ye are not of God,' was said to those who were
> not only corrupted by sin (for this evil was common to all), but also
> foreknown as those who would not believe with the faith that alone could
> deliver them from the bondage of sin.
They had no faith to believe with. The gift of faith is withheld from the
reprobate.
On this account He foreknew that
> those to whom He so spake would continue in that which they derived from
> the devil, that is, in their sins, and would die in the impiety in which
> they resembled him; and would not come to the regeneration wherein they
> would be the children of God, that is, be born of the God by whom they
> were created as men." (Augustine, Tractates on John's Gospel, Tractate
> 42.16).
There are folks you seem to dislike who take the same tack.
Who do we dislike? How do you know that we dislike anyone?
>
> > > For foreknowledge to be meaningful, it must be
> > > foreknowledge of something outside of God.
> >
> > What could possibly be outside of God?!!
> > (Unless you want to discuss the everlasting lake of fire.)
>
> I can hardly believe you meant to say what you've said here. Are you
> really a pantheist? The world, while created and upheld by God, is not
> God.
Of course not. But, "in Him we live and move and have our being." [Acts
17:28]
<snipped>
> > You can disagree with Calvin all you want, but
> > we do not see you coming up with any better explanations for the
> > Scriptures that speak of predestination. You have given us no answers
> > of your own. We find this arrogant on your part.
>
> Oh, my. "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime
> receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he
> is comforted, and thou art tormented." (Luke 16:25).
Huh? Are you avoiding telling us your own answers?
>
> You're sitting on a park bench, and notice a bum sharing the adjacent
> park bench with a stock-broker in a three-piece suit. A passer-by flips
> a quarter to the bum and strides onward. You're astounded: why did the
> passer-by give a quarter to the bum and not to the stock-broker? You
> set out to investigate the matter with such zeal you even look up the
> passer-by's financial records, his 'bible' if you will, which reveal
> that *HE DIDN'T OWE EITHER ONE A PENNY*! You're amazed: why did the
> passer-by give the quarter to the bum and not the stock-broker? It
> can't be on the basis of merit, as *neither* deserved the quarter,
> neither having done anything to place the passer-by in his debt. Having
> ascertained that merit cannot be the explanation for this asymmetrical
> state of affairs, you propose it's an insoluble mystery.
>
> But is it really such a mystery? Maybe the bum asked, or something...
Oh! Is this your theology? God predestinates the ones who ask?
Or does He predestinate only bums to heaven? Deep!
>
> "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no
> need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
> righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).
>
> Fredericka
Fredericka,
All men are sick and dying in their sins. All men are bums. And none
will ask for salvation from God. [Romans 3:10-19, Eccl. 7:20]
Your argument is not yet good enough to discount Calvin's, and we think
you are very brash for attempting to find fault with him.
We do not have all the answers either, but we know, by Scripture that
God has chosen those He knows [II Tim. 2:19, Jer. 1:5, Eph. 1:4&5,
Nahum 1:7, John 10:14,27, 13:18, I Corinthians 8:3, 13:12,
Proverbs 24:12, Psalm 31:7, 101:4, 139:1, II Corinthians 5:11,
Galatians 4:9, Matthew 7:21-23, 25:12] for salvation out of His love
for His own and His faithfulness to His Son, who was promised He would
lose none of those given to Him by the Father. [John 17:2,6,9,11,12,25]
Fredericka
> "...there's a great deal of information given in
> scripture about who God proposes to bless:
> 'Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in the
> kingdom of heaven.' (Matthew 5:3)."
>
> We have to take this in context. How do we
> reconcile it with Romans 3:10 ?
>
> "There is none righteous; not even one." (NASB)
And who ever said being poor is a virtue? Poverty and other afflictions
of life are not meritorious in the slightest. Yet God proposes to upend
this present order of things: "But many that are first shall be last;
and the last shall be first." (Matthew 19:30). Though there's no room
for it in Calvin's system, what's clear from scripture is that *one* of
God's protocols in filling up His Kingdom is to right the wrongs of this
unjust world. In the prophets' economics, the poor have suffered
unrighteousness. How could suffering oppression make one righteous?
Yet God says, they're in.
> Being "poor in spirit" is a form of righteousness.
> Romans says NONE are righteous. Matthew
> states that only those with at least one form of
> righteous (humility) shall be saved.
And who says being "poor in spirit" is a form of righteousness? What
Calvinists do with every scripture which actually addresses the issue of
who we'll run into in heaven is, first, 1.) falsely spiritualize it,
then 2.) falsely universalize it.
Leaving for the moment the question of individual salvation, the call
and response of faith, what are the global characteristics of the
Kingdom of God? Has the marketing research been done? Do we know the
demographic profile of the group that will gather at the river? Not
only done, but bound up nicely, as the Bible.
This is not a group advertisers would pay top dollar for. They're
rather down at the heel, actually. "Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath
not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the
kingdom, which he hath promised to them that love him?" (James 2:5);
"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen
the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath
chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are
mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised,
hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are..." (1 Corinthians 1:26-28); "For he hath regarded the
low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all
generations shall call me blessed...He hath put down the mighty from
their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry
with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away." (Luke 1:48-53).
Noting that such verses present a problem for their system, Calvinists
resort to two expedients: 1.) spiritualize. Did you think James, in
speaking of "the poor", was referring to anything so crass as how much
money somebody has in his pockets? Oh, no, he was referring to some
elevated, virtuous spiritual quality found equally in palaces as in
hovels. It might surprise James to know that's what he *really* meant,
but that's what they say. Then, having falsely spiritualized what James
said, the next step is to universalize it. Who, after all, is rich,
except God? We're all His poor relations: "For every beast of the
forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." (Psalms 50:10).
So, the Calvinists assure us, James' apparent distinction between the
rich and the poor is not really a distinction between two identifiable
groups of human beings at all; if it were, we could not pretend to be in
the dark as to God's plans and purposes. Rather, he meant to say that
all are poor in the sight of God...or maybe that all are rich, because
poverty is meritorious and fallen humanity lacks all merit...
> Which is correct ? Is Romans mistaken and
> Matthew right ? Or, Matthew in error and Romans
> the truth ?
Both, obviously. You falsely spiritualize the concrete characteristics
of the Kingdom of Heaven, pretending that the afflictions God means to
heal are 'virtues'.
> Employing good hermeneutics, we find no
> contradiction at all. God ~makes~ those who
> He intends to save ( The Elect ) righteous.
But righteousness isn't the issue. Who ever said the poverty and
mourning are virtues? Yet God proposes to bless those in these
conditions: "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."
(Matthew 5:4).
> "He predestined us in Him... according to the
> kind intention of His will" ( Ephesians 1:5 NASB ).
>
> Nothing here about foreknowledge of our future
> behavior. Our election is solely based on the
> kindness of His intention.
>
> We CAN'T be "poor in spirit" on our own. None
> of us are righteous.
You keep falling in this false dichotomy. Who told you that the only
characteristic of humanity which interests God is merit? If that were
so, it would be true that God's foreknowledge would only yield a
depressing uniformity, as "For all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God..." (Romans 3:23). Except the Bible does not support the
thesis that, by and large, people bore God, except for the one solitary
issue of merit.
> So, it would be nonsensical
> for God to look down the corridors of time to see
> who will be "poor in spirit", then deem to save
> them. When the Lord looked into the future, what
> He saw was that ~none~ are righteous ...except
> those He would make that way !
Again, *you* propose that the state of being "poor in spirit" is a
virtue, not me. Though Luke says, "And he lifted up his eyes on his
disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of
God." (Luke 6:20), I wouldn't identify poverty of spirit with
quotidian, hole-in-the-pocket poverty, either, though that's
demonstrably a wound God intends to bind up in His Kingdom.
Calvin claims that grace is irrestible. Yet the Bible tells us about
people who've resisted His grace: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in
heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did,
so do ye." (Acts 7:51); "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the
prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I
have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood
under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13:34); "And he could there do
no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and
healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went
round about the villages, teaching." (Mark 6:5-6). Not all have
responded eagerly to God's call; Jonah left town. God, no rapist,
respects people's right to say 'no'. Thus there is a human component of
faith: a grateful willingness to receive the gift of God.
I would guess that poverty of spirit is a [non-meritorious]
disinclination to say 'no'. After all, whether it's meritorious or not
depends on what the question is. God certainly does wait for an answer,
when He pops the question; we're not little hand puppets He manipulates
to amuse Himself. Some people are more fun to give gifts to than others
are. A fretful child who whines, 'Yuck, I hate that!', may be
displaying the meritorious quality of honesty. Do you think God likes
better to give the gift of faith to those who say, 'Thank you, it's just
what I wanted', or those who say, 'Can it be exchanged?'
And please don't tell me that 'faith' is meritorious. Paul specifically
excludes the possibility that faith can be classed as a good work: "But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4). Now,
since faith is *not* a meritorious work, and since there *is* a human
factor to it, what is the Biblical problem with supposing, with
Augustine, that God foreknew faith?
> Thus, Election comes first, and imputation of
> righteous follows that. We can't be elected
> due to God foreseeing our righteousness
> ...because -without election- none of us would
> be righteous !
DataRat, has any human being on the face of the earth every told you
they believe God elected us because He foresaw our righteousness? I
don't believe even Roman Catholics think that. Surely, *I* haven't said
that. You seem to be in this rut of making the same stereotyped
responses, whatever anyone says to you.
Fredericka
freder...@yahoo.com
The DataRat wrote:
Fredericka
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
The DataRat
"And who ever said being poor is a virtue?
Poverty and other afflictions of life are not
meritorious in the slightest."
The "poor in spirit" of Matthew 5:3 DOESN'T
reference poverty. It refers to humility and
brokeness before God.
"Though there's no room for it in Calvin's system,
what's clear from scripture is that *one* of God's
protocols in filling up His Kingdom ..."
God's protocol for filling up His kingdom ?
Where did you get THAT notion ?
"Yet God says, they're in."
The "poor in SPIRIT", ~not~ the "poor
in wallet" ! Being broke won't get you into
heaven. Being repentant will.
"Calvinists do with every scripture ....falsely
spiritualize it"
The text says: Poor in SPIRIT !
Nobody has to spiritualize Matthew 5:3, the
wording says "Spirit".
"You falsely spiritualize the concrete
characteristics of the Kingdom of Heaven,
pretending that the afflictions God means to
heal are 'virtues'."
Huh ? Did you even read what the Reformed
Rodent wrote ?
Is your proposition that everybody in the
Kingdom of Heaven goes around broke ?
"Who told you that the only characteristic of
humanity which interests God is merit?"
Who even mentioned "merit" ? If you
understood Calvinism half as much as you
think you do, you'd know that we believe
brokeness before God is a gift of the
Holy Spirit -and thus accrues no merit to
the person. You're probably confusing
"Calvinist" with "Catholic".
"Again, *you* propose that the state of
being 'poor in spirit' is a virtue, not me.
Only person in this discussion to use the
term "virtue" has been you !
The Genevan Rodent wasn't even discussing
"virtue".
"Calvin claims that grace is irrestible."
The first thing you've said about Calvinism,
so far, that has been accurate. Doubt that
you understand what we mean by "Irresistible
Grace", though !
"Yet the Bible tells us about people who've
resisted His grace: 'Ye stiffnecked and
uncircumcised'..."
As an expert on Calvinism, you -of course-
know that we recognize two types of calling:
The External Call ( or General Calling ), and
the Effectual Calling. No ? You didn't know
that ? Well, we do.
The example you cite is of the External Call
being resisted. Calvin never stated that the
External Call couldn't be resisted. He believed
only that the Effectual Calling was irresistible.
"Not all have responded eagerly to God's call;
Jonah left town."
Jonah's example isn't an instance of grace.
Calvin's doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" is
...well... about GRACE. It's ~not~ about
prophets of God following His commands !
"And please don't tell me that 'faith' is
meritorious."
Calvinists don't believe in merit. But, of
course -as an expert on Calvinism- you
already knew that !
"DataRat, has any human being on the
face of the earth every told you they believe
God elected us because He foresaw our
righteousness?"
The "Prescient Argument": Foreseen salvation.
Yup. Someone on the face of the earth ~did~
one time express that view to Bro. Rat. It
was somebody who didn't understand Scripture !
Fredericka, your lack of knowledge is only
exceeded by your inability to understand what
others write.
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
Eric Sneddon
This is ridiculous, to suggest that Christ is somehow subject to the writing
of Paul, instead of the other way around. Good hermeneutics would say
context? How about the context.
>Employing good hermeneutics, we find no
> contradiction at all. God ~makes~ those who
> He intends to save ( The Elect ) righteous.
>We have to take this in context. How do we
> reconcile it with Romans 3:10 ?
We read Romans, and then we ask how can we reconcile
> "There is none righteous; not even one." (NASB)
with the rest of the book. This is a reference made to circumcision and the
transferal of the covenant to the gentiles. I often wonder how it is
possible to ignore the meaning of this entire book just to take one line
from it. That's good hermeneutics? Indeed Christ doesn't say, righteous are
the poor in spirit, nor does he say, blessed are the righteous, read the
book. In addition Christ does say, I am not here for the righteous, I have
come for the sinners. This statement alone should be sufficient except to
those who apply ~good~ hermeneutics, i.e. slanted interpretations.
kes...@my-dejanews.com
What you are failing to see again Ted is that first comes grace, then
comes faith in the Gospel testament of the birth, life, teaching, death
and resurrection, and then comes salvation. There is *nothing else
required from God.* With true faith we automatically strive to work to
do what is best for everyone in everything we do. No one needs
a leader who gives his authority to confessing paedophiles.
The DataRat
"And who ever said being poor is a virtue?
Poverty and other afflictions of life are not
meritorious in the slightest."
The "poor in spirit" of Matthew 5:3 DOESN'T
reference poverty. It refers to humility and
brokeness before God.
"Though there's no room for it in Calvin's system,
what's clear from scripture is that *one* of God's
protocols in filling up His Kingdom ..."
God's protocol for filling up His kingdom ?
Where did you get THAT notion ?
"Yet God says, they're in."
The "poor in SPIRIT", ~not~ the "poor
in wallet" ! Being broke won't get you into
heaven. Being repentant will.
"Calvinists do with every scripture ....falsely
spiritualize it"
The text says: Poor in SPIRIT !
Nobody has to spiritualize Matthew 5:3, the
wording says "Spirit".
"You falsely spiritualize the concrete
characteristics of the Kingdom of Heaven,
pretending that the afflictions God means to
heal are 'virtues'."
Huh ? Did you even read what the Reformed
Rodent wrote ?
Is your proposition that everybody in the
Kingdom of Heaven goes around broke ?
"Who told you that the only characteristic of
humanity which interests God is merit?"
Who even mentioned "merit" ? If you
understood Calvinism half as much as you
think you do, you'd know that we believe
brokeness before God is a gift of the
Holy Spirit -and thus accrues no merit to
the person. You're probably confusing
"Calvinist" with "Catholic".
"Again, *you* propose that the state of
being 'poor in spirit' is a virtue, not me.
Only person in this discussion to use the
term "virtue" has been you !
The Genevan Rodent wasn't even discussing
"virtue".
"Calvin claims that grace is irrestible."
The first thing you've said about Calvinism,
so far, that has been accurate. Doubt that
you understand what we mean by "Irresistible
Grace", though !
"Yet the Bible tells us about people who've
resisted His grace: 'Ye stiffnecked and
uncircumcised'..."
As an expert on Calvinism, you -of course-
know that we recognize two types of calling:
The External Call ( or General Calling ), and
the Effectual Calling. No ? You didn't know
that ? Well, we do.
The example you cite is of the External Call
being resisted. Calvin never stated that the
External Call couldn't be resisted. He believed
only that the Effectual Calling was irresistible.
"Not all have responded eagerly to God's call;
Jonah left town."
Jonah's example isn't an instance of grace.
Calvin's doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" is
...well... about GRACE. It's ~not~ about
prophets of God following His commands !
"And please don't tell me that 'faith' is
meritorious."
Calvinists don't believe in merit. But, of
course -as an expert on Calvinism- you
already knew that !
"DataRat, has any human being on the
face of the earth every told you they believe
God elected us because He foresaw our
righteousness?"
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98120...@user2.teleport.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > Of course. But faith without good works is dead, claims James. Thus,
> > yes, we have a horribly circular argument.
> > I've long since come to the conclusion that circular arguments and strange
> > loops are just the human inability to understand eternity.
>
> What you are failing to see again Ted is that first comes grace, then
> comes faith in the Gospel testament of the birth, life, teaching, death
> and resurrection, and then comes salvation. There is *nothing else
> required from God.*
Part of the Gospel Testament is works. Or have you thrown Luke out of the
Bible as well as Maccabees?
> With true faith we automatically strive to work to
> do what is best for everyone in everything we do. No one needs
> a leader who gives his authority to confessing paedophiles.
Oh? then a lack of coordination of efforts is the best that you can do?
Also, no Catholic has a leader who gives his authority to confessing
pedophiles, every confessing pedophile has been removed from the
priesthood.
In most archdiocese, there's even a published method for doing so.
What method does your church use to remove inept preachers?
Charles Hedrick
>> scripture about who God proposes to bless:
>> 'Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in the
>> kingdom of heaven.' (Matthew 5:3)."
Since there's been lots of discussion about how the passage fits in
with Calvin's "system", I thought it might be relevant to give you
Calvin's own exegesis of it. This is taken from his commentary on the
synoptic Gospels.
Calvin believes that Mat 5:3 is based on the same teaching as Luke
6:20. (By the way, Calvin says that the Sermon on the Mount and the
Sermon on the Plain were put together by the gospel-writers as a
summary of Jesus' teaching, based on his discourses from a number of
occasions.)
Since Luke clearly means "poor" literally, Calvin specifically rejects
interpretations that take Mat 5:3 in a purely spiritual sense. On the
other hand, we can't just say that all poverty is blessed: it is
obvious that its effect on some people are not positive. Thus Matthew
qualifies the blessedness to those who are poor "in spirit". The poor
who are blessed are those who learn from their troubles to submit to
God, and who have faith that he will rescue them in the end.
"It is worth noting that no-one is poor in spirit, unless he has
cancelled his own account and rested upon the loving kindness of God.
Those who are broken by despair and shattered by it, and still cry out
against God, must ever be high and mighty in spirit."
Calvin points out both present and eschatological implications: that
is, he believes that when suffering is properly used, it leads to a
kind of happiness in this life. But he also contrasts our present
lives with our future hope. He takes great pains to distance the
blessedness of God from Stoicism.
(Incidentally, most scholars would say that Calvin doesn't have a
"system". Some later Calvinists do. But Calvin's theology isn't
"systematic". In particular, it is not focused on election, although
he certainly regards election as an important teaching.)
Fredericka
> "And who ever said being poor is a virtue?
> Poverty and other afflictions of life are not
> meritorious in the slightest."
>
> reference poverty. It refers to humility and
> brokeness before God.
Then let's look at Luke: "Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom
of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh...But woe unto you that
are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are
full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall
mourn and weep." (Luke 6:20-25). I'm waiting for you to explain why
none of this actually means what it says, that phrases like 'poor' and
'rich' are actually code-words for etherial states of mind belonging
equally to the rich and famous as to the destitute...
> "Though there's no room for it in Calvin's system,
> what's clear from scripture is that *one* of God's
> protocols in filling up His Kingdom ..."
>
> God's protocol for filling up His kingdom ?
> Where did you get THAT notion ?
I go by the Book. Sorry if it offends you. There's a great deal of
preaching in the Bible presenting a demographical profile of the
Kingdom. Calvin is obliged to spiritualize all of it away. This is why
sociologists see his theology as instrumental to the development of the
modern economy: it was necessary to 'neuter' what the Bible says about
the rich and the poor to get to where we are.
> "Yet God says, they're in."
>
> The "poor in SPIRIT", ~not~ the "poor
> in wallet" ! Being broke won't get you into
> heaven. Being repentant will.
So you don't think Jesus ever said what Luke reports Him as saying?
<snip>
> "You falsely spiritualize the concrete
> characteristics of the Kingdom of Heaven,
> pretending that the afflictions God means to
> heal are 'virtues'."
>
> Huh ? Did you even read what the Reformed
> Rodent wrote ?
>
> Is your proposition that everybody in the
> Kingdom of Heaven goes around broke ?
>
> "Who told you that the only characteristic of
> humanity which interests God is merit?"
>
> Who even mentioned "merit" ? If you
> understood Calvinism half as much as you
> think you do, you'd know that we believe
> brokeness before God is a gift of the
> Holy Spirit -and thus accrues no merit to
> the person. You're probably confusing
> "Calvinist" with "Catholic".
This is so asinine. 'Merit' and 'virtue' are words used by Calvin.
Where did you find out about Calvin's system anyway - from a coloring
book? Calvin calls humility the "sovereign virtue...the mother and root
of all virtue." (John Calvin, Sermons on Job lxxx, CR XXXIV. 234; tr. A.
Golding (1580 edition, p. 376)).
> "Again, *you* propose that the state of
> being 'poor in spirit' is a virtue, not me.
>
> Only person in this discussion to use the
> term "virtue" has been you !
>
> The Genevan Rodent wasn't even discussing
> "virtue".
Given that Calvin, whom you claim to follow, uses the words 'virtue' and
'merit', what conceivable point are you making? If you're not familiar
with these words, then get a dictionary.
> "Calvin claims that grace is irrestible."
>
> The first thing you've said about Calvinism,
> so far, that has been accurate. Doubt that
> you understand what we mean by "Irresistible
> Grace", though !
>
> "Yet the Bible tells us about people who've
> resisted His grace: 'Ye stiffnecked and
> uncircumcised'..."
>
> As an expert on Calvinism, you -of course-
> know that we recognize two types of calling:
> The External Call ( or General Calling ), and
> the Effectual Calling. No ? You didn't know
> that ? Well, we do.
Oh, do you think they're only two? Truth to tell, Calvin is obliged to
drag ever-proliferating, Biblically unknown species of grace into the
picture - even pouring it out upon the pagans - to restore the world to
some semblance of its natural appearance, after he has introduced the
non-Biblical doctrine of 'total depravity'. Can it be possible that
fallen mankind is in a state of *total* depravity, with no good
impulses, no noble aspirations *at all*? How, then, to account for the
virtuous pagans? Calvin is too competent a classicist to deny their
existence; anyone who's ever read Plutarch's Lives knows many of the
pagans led exemplary lives in many respects. Though none of them could
stand unscathed before a holy God who is a consuming fire, 'total
depravity' is also a horrid caricature of their moral condition. Not to
worry: faced with problems like this, Calvin just invents new species of
grace. The pagans were virtuous through God's grace, pagan
sub-division! Why, Homer even says so: "Even in Homer, men are said to
excel in natural ability not only as Jupiter has bestowed it upon each,
but 'as he leads them day by day.'" (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, Book II, Chapter II, 17). Perhaps miffed at being called
'Jupiter', God gave these guys talent and led them day by day, but
withheld salvation. Does it say that in the Bible? Well, no, but where
does it say any of this stuff in the Bible?
Given the corner Calvin has painted himself into with 'total depravity',
he's obliged to declare *anything* good in man, whether knowledge or
moral virtue, to be an immediate gift of God: "Indeed, I admit that the
endowments resplendent in Camillus were gifts of God and seem rightly
commendable if judged in themselves...Here, however, is the surest and
easiest solution to this question: these are not common gifts of nature,
but special graces of God, which he bestows variously and in a certain
measure upon men otherwise wicked." (ICR, Book II, Chapter III, 4).
So even the pagans are gifted with 'special' grace! And that's only to
explain why they do not present a picture resembling the 'total
depravity' he wishes to ascribe to them. Wouldn't it just be simpler to
jetison this 'total depravity' deal? It's not in the Bible, after all.
Paul, speaking in the person of a sinner, says this: "For we know that
the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin...For I know that
in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is
present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For
the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I
do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good,
evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the
inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the
law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which
is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from
the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord..."
(Romans 7:18-15).
Can Paul possibly be speaking here in the person of a regenerate man?
Recall that Calvin claims God's grace surgically removes our corrupt
will and replaces it with God's will. So whose will is so feeble and
futile as to be able to conceive of good, yet never to bring it to
fruition? Not the sinner, says Calvin; he is not capable of framing any
idea of good at all. The condition Paul describes cannot be the
condition of the regenerate, according to Calvin, nor can it be the
condition of the sinner. Hmmm...must be somebody from Venus or Mars.
> The example you cite is of the External Call
> being resisted. Calvin never stated that the
> External Call couldn't be resisted. He believed
> only that the Effectual Calling was irresistible.
But the whole reason you have to invent extra-Biblical categories is to
explain away the fact that the Bible clearly teaches God's grace has
been successfully resisted. Thus you're obliged to say, 'Oh, it wasn't
*this* kind of grace that was resisted, but that other kind...'
Wouldn't it be simpler to *learn* from the Bible, than to explain it
away?
<snip>
> "And please don't tell me that 'faith' is
> meritorious."
>
> Calvinists don't believe in merit. But, of
> course -as an expert on Calvinism- you
> already knew that !
Fine, so you realize faith is not meritorious, nor is it unaccompanied
by the human will attending in its train. Thus it's no wonder God's
foreknowledge starts the ball rolling on predestination, just like the
Bible says: "For whom he did know, he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his Son..." (Romans 8:29).
Fredericka
Fredericka
<snip>
> > What you are failing to see again Ted is that first comes grace, then
> > comes faith in the Gospel testament of the birth, life, teaching, death
> > and resurrection, and then comes salvation. There is *nothing else
> > required from God.*
>
> Part of the Gospel Testament is works. Or have you thrown Luke out of the
> Bible as well as Maccabees?
But where do works come from? From grace: "But by the grace of God I am
what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but
I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of
God which was with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10). Paul gives the glory to
God and ascribes all his good works to the "grace of God".
Fredericka
bobe
we do good because we are saved!"
kes...@my-dejanews.com
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > With true faith we automatically strive to work to
> > do what is best for everyone in everything we do. No one needs
> > a leader who gives his authority to confessing paedophiles.
>
> Oh? then a lack of coordination of efforts is the best that you can do?
Revealing the truth is the best I can do.
> Also, no Catholic has a leader who gives his authority to confessing
> pedophiles, every confessing pedophile has been removed from the
> priesthood.
I have seen the evidence to the contrary.
> In most archdiocese, there's even a published method for doing so.
> What method does your church use to remove inept preachers?
Show me a paedophile who says he is a Christian and I’ll show
you a liar.
The DataRat
"Then let's look at Luke..."
Correct hermeneutics requires that
more specific passages be used to
interpret less specific passages.
Your exegesis employs the reverse
logic, and is damn poor hermeneutics !
"I go by the Book. Sorry if it offends you."
Then quote it ! Where is your proof text
for "filling up the Kingdom" ?
Or, is ~your~ book the Gospel According
to Fredericka ?
"So you don't think Jesus ever said what
Luke reports Him as saying?"
The Matthew citation is clearly relating
the same quotation as Luke. You prefer
to use Luke because it is less specific
and can mean what YOU want. The
Matthew quote is more explicit, and it is
that which must be used to exegete the
Luke quote.
"..'Merit' and 'virtue' are words used by
Calvin."
NOT in the ways ~you~ ascribe to him !
"Calvin calls humility the 'sovereign virtue...
the mother and root of all virtue.'..."
Yes, because it relies on the virtue of God
-NOT our own merit ! You may have read Calvin,
but you clearly don't understand what he wrote.
"Given that Calvin, whom you claim to follow,
uses the words 'virtue' and 'merit', what
conceivable point are you making?"
The opposite point that YOU make !
Calvin ~does~ mention "virtue" and "merit".
He repeatedly wrote that we have no virtue
in ourselves, and no merit in what we do.
The best Calvin quote you could dig up is
about humility as a virtue. Humility is the
recognition that we have no virtue. It relies on
the virtue of another ( in this case, God ).
"Oh, do you think they're only two?"
Calvin did.
"Calvin is obliged to drag ever-proliferating,
Biblically unknown species of grace..."
Yeah, right, Calvin came up with hundreds,
then thousands, of forms of grace !
Fredericka, you're not on drugs, are you ?
"Can it be possible that fallen mankind is in
a state of *total* depravity, with no good
impulses, no noble aspirations *at all*?
How, then, to account for the virtuous pagans?"
What "virtuous pagans" ?
"Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, Book II, Chapter II, 17"
Re-read that chapter of Calvin's Institutes.
He was talking mainly about mental facilities
-like "learning" and "acuteness" and
"judgment". His only point is that God
restrained the extent of our fall lest we
"would have carried along with it the entire
destruction of nature." ( Book One, Ch. 2,
Sec. 17 )
Indeed, Calvin's reference to Homer which
you cite was regarding "genius" -NOT virtue !
The Doctrine of Total Depravity does NOT imply
that we are retarded. THAT was Calvin's point.
You misquote the Homer reference as being
about "virtue" -which it wasn't !
Ok, CALVINISM 101 ( just for Fredericka ):
"Total Depravity" does ~not~ mean we are
absolutely depraved. It's an incapacity to
see ultimate truth. Total depravity DOESN'T
imply we loot and rape and burn things down
at every opportunity. Nor does it imply that
we are absolutely devoid of intelligence,
reasoning, or the mundane sensibilities.
"So even the pagans are gifted with 'special'
grace!"
Proof that one can read Calvin and not
understand a word he wrote !
The "special grace" Calvin was referring to
is NOT the Saving Grace we are discussing
in this thread.
God shows us special kindnesses by
allowing us intelligence and reasoning.
He prevents us from completely destroying
ourselves by His ordination of secular
government.
However, this ISN'T to be confused with
Redemptive Grace that saves us from our
sins. Calvin saw the difference ...Fredericka
does not !
"Wouldn't it just be simpler to jetison this
'total depravity' deal? It's not in the Bible,
after all."
Certainly is !
"There is no one who does good, not even
one" ( Psalm 14:3 NASB cf Psalm 55:3 ).
"There is none righteous; not even one"
( Romans 3:10 NASB See: Ibid )
"There is none who seeks after God"
( Romans 3:11 NKJ ).
"All have sinned and fall short" ( Romans
3:23 NASB ).
"There is no one who does not sin" ( 1 Kings
8:46 NIV ).
"For as through the one man's disobedience
the many were made sinners" ( Romans 5:19
NASB ).
"With men it is impposible, but not with God"
( Mark 10:27 NASB ).
There are a lot more proof texts for Total
Depravity, but these seven more than suffice.
They establish that a.) no human is good,
b.) none of has any real righteousness in
ourselves, c.) we got that way from a sin
nature inherited from our original parents,
d.) thus each and every one of us is a
sinner, e.) none of us seeks God as a
remedy, and f.) getting out of this situation
on our own is impossible.
THAT is the Doctrine of Total Depravity.
"Calvin claims God's grace surgically
removes our corrupt will and replaces
it with God's will."
Again you fail to comprehend what John
Calvin was saying. If you've read his
Institutes all the way through, you'd know
that Calvin does NOT consider man's
will "replaced" with God's will. Rather that
we are ~positionally~ justified with an
alien righteousness in the eyes of the
Most High.
The Reformed Rodent is beginning to
be convinced that you've only read snippets
of what Calvin has written.
John Calvin -like the Apostle Paul- believed
that even the Elect here on earth retain the
remnants of their sin nature. A very large portion
of his Institutes was written to address just THAT
issue !
"Fine, so you realize faith is not meritorious..."
Calvin taught just that. YOU are the only
one who supposed otherwise. Read ~all~ of
what the great reformer wrote ...NOT little
snippets taken out of context !
The DataRat
Theodore M. Seeber
True. Without grace we can have neither faith nor works; nor tradition
which builds faith and works for that matter....
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98121...@user2.teleport.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > With true faith we automatically strive to work to
> > > do what is best for everyone in everything we do. No one needs
> > > a leader who gives his authority to confessing paedophiles.
> >
> > Oh? then a lack of coordination of efforts is the best that you can do?
>
> Revealing the truth is the best I can do.
But whose truth? God's, in which case you should have the same set of
truths as every other Christian since the apostles, or yours, which may
differ based upon the "personal interpretation" of the scriptures?
> > Also, no Catholic has a leader who gives his authority to confessing
> > pedophiles, every confessing pedophile has been removed from the
> > priesthood.
>
> I have seen the evidence to the contrary.
I dispute your evidence as mere media hype.
> > In most archdiocese, there's even a published method for doing so.
> > What method does your church use to remove inept preachers?
>
> Show me a paedophile who says he is a Christian and I’ll show
> you a liar.
I didn't say pedophiles specifically, I said inept preachers, which while
that covers pedophiles, it also covers embezzelers, liars, cheats, and con
artists (of which, there are several in fundamentalist/evangelical
christianity).
Eric Sneddon
every passage.
This is something that dogma does not require.
Fredericka
<snip>
> "So you don't think Jesus ever said what
> Luke reports Him as saying?"
>
> The Matthew citation is clearly relating
> the same quotation as Luke.
Save your cut-n-paste Bible for someone else, DataRat. You just shuffle
and sift Bible texts till you come up with one you like.
There's no reason to jumble together sermons given by Jesus on different
occasions, whether on the mount or on the plain, other than to have the
opportunity to pick and choose which of His words you see fit to
believe. There's never been any travelling public speaker in the
history of the world who has delivered his standard stump speech on
*one* and *only one* occasion. It's like if someone reported hearing
Henny Youngman tell a certain joke in Las Vegas, and someone else
recalled hearing him tell it in the Catskills...but wait, the
phraseology is slightly different! A genius at eisegesis like yourself
would explain that the two quotes are of the very same words, and thus
one may pick and choose whichever one prefers.
<snip>
> "..'Merit' and 'virtue' are words used by
> Calvin."
>
> NOT in the ways ~you~ ascribe to him !
>
> "Calvin calls humility the 'sovereign virtue...
> the mother and root of all virtue.'..."
>
> Yes, because it relies on the virtue of God
> -NOT our own merit ! You may have read Calvin,
> but you clearly don't understand what he wrote.
DataRat, you don't seem even to be literate. Are you *now* trying to
claim I've said Calvin urges us to rely upon our own merits for
salvation??? If you don't know how to read, why are you taking up
people's time on Usenet? I don't believe I've read dumber posts in a
long time than your supposed defense of Calvinism. You obviously have
never read Calvin, and think the particular terminology used by the
comic books you learned his system from is the key to it all.
> "Given that Calvin, whom you claim to follow,
> uses the words 'virtue' and 'merit', what
> conceivable point are you making?"
>
> The opposite point that YOU make !
>
> Calvin ~does~ mention "virtue" and "merit".
> He repeatedly wrote that we have no virtue
> in ourselves, and no merit in what we do.
>
> The best Calvin quote you could dig up is
> about humility as a virtue. Humility is the
> recognition that we have no virtue. It relies on
> the virtue of another ( in this case, God ).
>
> "Oh, do you think they're only two?"
>
> Calvin did.
So you snipped my quotations of Calvin proving my point, and indulge in
childish insults. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a moron.
> "Calvin is obliged to drag ever-proliferating,
> Biblically unknown species of grace..."
>
> Yeah, right, Calvin came up with hundreds,
> then thousands, of forms of grace !
>
> Fredericka, you're not on drugs, are you ?
Waste somebody else's time, idiot.
Fredericka
Stephen Adams
>
>"Then let's look at Luke..."
>Correct hermeneutics requires that
>more specific passages be used to
>interpret less specific passages.
>Your exegesis employs the reverse
>logic, and is damn poor hermeneutics !
Who determines which passages are clearer
and more specific? And perhaps the
"less clear" or "less specific" passage
has a far broader meaning which you have
now limited.
Not a good thing to do to limit God, DR.
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Stephen Adams
"Space-age cybernomad"
GoldRush
Stephen Adams <sad...@MCS.COM> wrote in article
<74sfp0$7...@Venus.mcs.net>...
> "The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> writes:
> >
> >"Then let's look at Luke..."
> >Correct hermeneutics requires that
> >more specific passages be used to
> >interpret less specific passages.
> >Your exegesis employs the reverse
> >logic, and is damn poor hermeneutics !
>
> Who determines which passages are clearer
> and more specific? And perhaps the
> "less clear" or "less specific" passage
> has a far broader meaning which you have
> now limited.
>
> Not a good thing to do to limit God, DR.
>
> -Steve
> --
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author
> ---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
> sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Stephen Adams
> "Space-age cybernomad"
>
Come on, Steve, you are up to better argument
than this. Some passages *are* more specific and
relevant than others, just due to content.
Take a look at a history of "Frederika's" posts, and you will
not want to defend her/his hermeneutics.
kes...@my-dejanews.com
In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98121...@user2.teleport.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98121...@user2.teleport.com>,
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > With true faith we automatically strive to work to
> > > > do what is best for everyone in everything we do. No one needs
> > > > a leader who gives his authority to confessing paedophiles.
> > >
> > > Oh? then a lack of coordination of efforts is the best that you can do?
> >
> > Revealing the truth is the best I can do.
>
> But whose truth? God's, in which case you should have the same set of
> truths as every other Christian since the apostles, or yours, which may
> differ based upon the "personal interpretation" of the scriptures?
Please see to days replies in "666 The Papal Number"
> > > Also, no Catholic has a leader who gives his authority to confessing
> > > pedophiles, every confessing pedophile has been removed from the
> > > priesthood.
> >
> > I have seen the evidence to the contrary.
>
> I dispute your evidence as mere media hype.
That is your choice but history reveals the evidence as
many ex Roman Catholics will also confess.
Paedophile Roman Catholic priests are constantly being reported
because these priests themselves are still dead in their sins.
This is why they support an organisation that is riddled with child abuse.
> > > In most archdiocese, there's even a published method for doing so.
> > > What method does your church use to remove inept preachers?
> >
> > Show me a paedophile who says he is a Christian and I’ll show
> > you a liar.
>
> I didn't say pedophiles specifically, I said inept preachers, which while
> that covers pedophiles, it also covers embezzelers, liars, cheats, and con
> artists (of which, there are several in fundamentalist/evangelical
> christianity).
Not in my church that I know of.
The DataRat
"There's no reason to jumble together sermons
given by Jesus on different occasions, whether
on the mount or on the plain..."
Like modern speakers, Jesus undoubtedly utilized
some of the same phraseology on different
occasions. THIS obviously being one example.
Or, perhaps, Matthew was an elaboration upon
Luke. Either way, it would be stupid to think these
two references about being "poor" represented
are unrelated.
"There's never been any travelling public speaker
in the history of the world who has delivered his
standard stump speech on *one* and *only one*
occasion."
Exactly the Reformed Rodent's point ! So, using
good hermeneutics, we employ the more explicit
quote to exegete the less explicit one. Matthew
-in this instance- illuminating Luke.
"...that the two quotes are of the very same words..."
THAT'S just it: They're ~not~ "the very same words".
Matthew specifies "poor in spirit". Luke 6 only says
"poor", Matthew 5 says "poor in spirit". We use the
more explicit to interpret the less explicit when the
reference plainly is the same.
"Are you *now* trying to claim I've said Calvin urges us
to rely upon our own merits for salvation???"
Your original article was NOT entirely lucid. You
~seemed~ to be saying that. Bro. Rat will accept
your retraction, now.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"His foreknowledge doesn't compel their
choice of the evening's amusement; rather
He foreknows what their choice will be."
Indeed. And, He knows THAT choice will
~not~ be Christ ( Romans 9:16, 11:7, John
6:65, et. al. ).
"Even if you suppose, with the Calvinists, that
the human will is totally corrupt, still we have
free will."
The term "free will" implies unrestricted choice.
Only the Most High has free will. Humans don't.
We can't choose to fly to Mars this afternoon
in our underwear !
The freedom we have is better described as
"free agency": A restricted set of choices. One
of those restrictions being imposed by our sin
nature. Thus, choosing God is more a theoretical
possibility than a real alternative. This is why
Scripture says "no one can come to Me unless it
has been granted him from the Father" ( John
13:18 NASB ).
Not that God turns away people knocking on the
doors of heaven. It's that -without divine intervention
by the Holy spirit- we wouldn't even think of knocking.
"There is none who seeks after God" ( Romans
3:11 NKJ ).
So, the foreknowledge that God has looking down
the corridors of time into the future is: No human
-on his own- will choose Christ.
"Abandoned sinners may ponder whether to go to
the bar room or the opium den or the brothel or the
race track; surely it's within their power to will one
or the other indifferently, none being good. God
eternally foreknows which they will choose, and
thus can send one of His servants to intercept them
and hand them a gospel tract."
Nice turn of phrase. Bro. Rat can appreciate an
idea expressed well. Much more coherent than you
usually are, Fredericka. You've either stopped
being on drugs, or started taking your medication !
As an atheist for thirty years, the Reformed Rodent
is here to tell you that it takes a lot more than "a
gospel tract" to save someone. The formerly
unregenerate DataRat received many he laughed
at, spit upon, or threw away without reading !
Being Born Again is a process of regeneration.
Until that process takes place, the Gospel and all
gospel tracts are "foolishness" ( 1 Corinthians 1:18
NASB ).
"Origen, On Prayer, VI.3-4"
Is Origen where you get your religion, Fredericka ?
THAT would explain a lot of what you believe.
Origen had many misconceptions.
Fredericka, the Genevan Rodent has told everyone
here his theological perspective ( Calvinism ), and
even what church he attends (URC). Where are YOU
coming from ? What theology do ~you~ subscribe
to, and what church do ~you~ attend ?
The DataRat
Stephen Adams
>Stephen Adams <sad...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>> Who determines which passages are clearer
>> and more specific? And perhaps the
>> "less clear" or "less specific" passage
>> has a far broader meaning which you have
>> now limited.
>>
>Come on, Steve, you are up to better argument
>than this. Some passages *are* more specific and
>relevant than others, just due to content.
But this is purely subjective opinion! And my real
point is that by taking the "clearest" and "more
specific" passage, you may well miss the full
meaning of the more complicated passages.
>Take a look at a history of "Frederika's" posts, and you will
>not want to defend her/his hermeneutics.
The idea of "let the clear interpret the unclear"
or "specific interpret the less specific" can be
shown to be poor hermeneutics, since by using it,
Arminians and Calvinists can't agree on which
verses to use to interpret the others! Calvinists
use the "sovereignty" verses to interpret the
"free will" verses. Arminaisn do it the other way
around.
Hmm...
The DataRat
"But this is purely subjective opinion!"
Give us a break ! The Luke citation references
"the poor", the Matthew citation the "poor in spirit".
Clearly one is more explicit than the other. No
opinion involved here at all ...except reasoned
opinion ( something you'd know nothing about ! ).
"...by taking the 'clearest' and 'more specific'
passage, you may well miss the full meaning
of the more complicated passages."
Sheesh ! THAT is like saying that by having
less information we can make more informed
decisions.
"The idea of 'let the clear interpret the unclear'
or 'specific interpret the less specific' can be
shown to be poor hermeneutics, since by using it,
Arminians and Calvinists can't agree on which
verses to use to interpret the others!"
What you say would be true -if the purpose of
hermeneutics was NOT to correctly exegete
Scripture ! But, you think the purpose of
hermeneutics is to bring agreement between
Arminians and Calvinists.
Sounds like standard Post-Modernism: Truth
subordinated to peace and harmony !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"We don't do good to be saved,
we do good because we are saved!"
Amen !
DR
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> Yeah, she was trying to imitate "Rev." Frank,
> and not give any concrete description of her
> own views. Fredericka's later posts were a
> little more lucid, but her original one was close
> to being irrational.
The "Most Right Rev." Frank has stated many many times, he is a
CHRISTIAN!
Something he wishes the Rat would do!
The "Most Right Rev." Frank, needs no MAN MADE RELIGION, Christ Jesus'
is sufficient.
As it was said, let it be written:
Now I beg you, brothers, through the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ,
that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among
you, but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same
judgment. For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers, by
those who are from Chloe's household, that there are contentions among
you. Now I mean this, that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," "I
follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," and, "I follow Christ." Is Christ
divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name
of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and
Gaius, so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own
name. (I also baptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don't
know whether I baptized any other.) For Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel -- not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of
Christ wouldn't be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness
to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.
***This is from the bible, Rat! You should read it sometimes!
--
Peace Be With You
Rev. Frank
Visit:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/i/n/t/intmismin/index1.html
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
Hey DR,
Since you stumbled on how to use your Out Look Express HTML
capabilities, your messages are pretty!
> Why do you want the Reformed Rodent to state that "Rev. Frank is
> a Christian" ?
If you do, tell Mrs. Rat to go outside! So she might miss the lightening
bolt.
> Do you have doubts, Frank ?
Yes! I wonder sometimes.
> You
> mean Bro. Rat should stop reading it all the time, and just
> read it sometimes ?
For Mrs. Rat's sake, I hope you lay it aside sometimes.
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> Yeah, she was trying to imitate "Rev." Frank,
> and not give any concrete description of her
> own views. Fredericka's later posts were a
> little more lucid, but her original one was close
> to being irrational.
I have posted this before and shall do so again.
******
Below are Rev. Frank's beliefs and statement of faith.
1.] I believe in the God of Abraham.
2.] I believe in Jesus as His Son the Christ.
3.] I believe in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
4.] I believe Jesus is the only atonement & mediator between God and me.
5.] I believe 1-4 through faith, a gift from God.
6.] I believe through this free unmerited gift of faith comes grace and
forgiveness.
7.] I believe I'm a child of God because of 1-6.
As a child of God, I must obey Christ's commands:
a] "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is
the first commandment."
b] "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
c] "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I
have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men
know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
******
GoldRush
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in article
<7Auc2.824$aj7...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>...
> DR,
In Fredericka's orginal post, she/he *hinted* at another
reason for salvation, but has not been forthcoming
with an answer yet.
We quote her/his allusion: "Is it not possible that God's relevant
foreknowledge is of something *other* than merit?"
We join you in your quest to find out what theology this
person holds, if any. (We are suspicious of a Pentecostal
frame of reference, however.)
The DataRat
"In Fredericka's original post, she/he
*hinted* at another reason for salvation,
but has not been forthcoming with an
answer yet."
Yeah, she was trying to imitate "Rev." Frank,
and not give any concrete description of her
own views. Fredericka's later posts were a
little more lucid, but her original one was close
to being irrational.
"We quote her/his allusion: 'Is it not possible
that God's relevant foreknowledge is of something
*other* than merit?'..."
Indeed. And since Calvin was being discussed,
it seemed she was implying that Calvin argued
for salvation-by-merit.
"We join you in your quest to find out what
theology this person holds, if any. (We are
suspicious of a Pentecostal frame of reference,
however.)"
Think she's a Pentecostal loony, huh ? Could
be !
The Reformed Rodent saw a few different
strains of theology in what Fredericka wrote
-none of them good !
She favorably mentioned Origen, for example.
The gnostics love that guy. And it also made
Bro. Rat think Fredericka might be a Romanist.
Personally, the Genevan Rodent believes she'll
be a kamikaze hit-and-run poster. Doubt that
Fredericka will explicitly state her faith.
Since she misinterprets Calvin at every turn,
DR suspects she hasn't read his books ...but,
rather, is relating stuff she's read in some
anti-Calvinist tract.
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
The DataRat
"As a child of God, I must obey Christ's
commands:"
Just the three you listed, Frank ?
How 'bout the Big Ten ?
How 'bout ~all~ of God's commands in
the Bible ?
Or, are we doing pick-and-choose ?
The DataRat
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> How 'bout the Big Ten ?
Well...In fact...I believe there are 11 teams in the Big Ten.
They are OHIO ST, MINNESOTA, PURDUE, WISCONSIN, IOWA, INDIANA,
NORTHWESTERN, ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN ST, MICHIGAN and PENN ST.
I believe the Big 11{?} is a good football conference, but as a general
rule the boys are a bit slow.
I prefer the S.E.C.
I still miss Woody Hayes; we need some more like him!
The DataRat
"They are OHIO ST, MINNESOTA, PURDUE,WISCONSIN, IOWA, INDIANA, NORTHWESTERN,ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN ST, MICHIGAN and PENN ST."
Thanx for the info, Frank. The Reformed Rodentdoesn't know a damn thing about football. Youwon't, of course, mind when -in the future- Bro. Ratsays that you intentionally refuse to plainly stateyour religious beliefs, and instead hide behind vaguegeneralities ?The DataRat. .
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> Thanx for the info, Frank.
Your welcome! The 'BOWL' season is just getting started.
> The Reformed
> Rodent doesn't know a damn thing about football.
And a few other things, I MUST add.
> You won't,
> of course, mind when -in the future- Bro. Rat says that you
> intentionally refuse to plainly state your religious beliefs,
> and instead hide behind vague generalities?
DR,
I gave you Rev. Frank's SEVEN points!
Heck, Calvin only gave you FIVE!!!!!
1.] I believe in the God of Abraham.
2.] I believe in Jesus as His Son the Christ.
3.] I believe in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
4.] I believe Jesus is the only atonement & mediator between God and me.
5.] I believe 1-4 through faith, a gift from God.
6.] I believe through this free unmerited gift of faith comes grace and
forgiveness.
7.] I believe I'm a child of God because of 1-6.
And then you say I, Rev. Frank; "refuse to plainly state your{my}
religious beliefs, and instead hide behind vague generalities"
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOUR LORD, CHRIST JESUS IS SPEAKING IN
GENERALITIES??
HE said "There is none other commandment greater than these" and "A new
commandment I give unto you"
As a child of God, I must obey Christ's commands:
a] "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is
the first commandment."
b] "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
c] "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I
have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men
know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
Good lord DataRat, get a hold of yourself!
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> You won't,
> of course, mind when -in the future- Bro. Rat says that you
> intentionally refuse to plainly state your religious beliefs,
> and instead hide behind vague generalities?
DataRat,
For the furtherance of spreading the TRUE gospel of Jesus the Christ.
If you wish to ask me a few direct questions about my beliefs and/or
understanding of the TRUE gospel. I will give you and these NGs the best
answer I have.
Then you will have more ammunition to fire at me PERSONALLY.
If you choose not to however, please let this rest!
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> Why someone would get a mail order "Doctor of Divinity" degree, Frank ?
I always wanted to be THE Doctor of love and in my healthier & younger
days I spent many many hours working on that eventuality.
After my stroke well...
I had to settle for "Doctor of Divinity".
> Calvin had two less points than you.
> But ~his~ points weren't vague generalities like
> "I believe I'm a child of God"!
Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
and joint-heirs with Christ...
*** DataRat, I hope and pray that God in His infinite mercy and love
*** softens your heart and opens your eyes and allows you to become a
*** "joint-heir with Christ" thus becoming a true child of God! I do &
*** will pray for you.
DataRat, You do not need a taskmaster or schoolmaster if/when God
freely give His gift of faith!
I Hope one day God will lift the yoke of LAW off of you!
Galatians 3:23-29 But before faith came, we were kept under the law,
shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore
the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under
a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ. 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.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according
to the promise.
> You spent years obtaining a D.D. degree, and ~that's~ all you learned?
> Oh, wait, the Calvinist Rodent forgot you paid fifty-bucks and got your
> "Doctor of Divinity" degree from a diploma mill!
WRONG!!!
The honorary DD was given to me by the church {ULC} that I was ordained.
I was hoping to preside over your wedding{s}, with the present Mrs. Rat
of course!
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> The Calvinist Rodent ISN'T adverse to some joking around.
> ( We can have a laugh together before burning you at the stake! )
> Basically, it boils down to: Do you believe in all of the Bible,
> cover-to-cover, Frank ?
> Inspired.
> Infallible.
> Inerrant.
> ( One of the major versions, too, like the NIV, NASB, AV, NKJ
> you choose. )
> OR: Do you pick and choose what out of the Bible appeals to you?
> Don't dance around this one. Don't even bother giving a reply like
> "I believe in the inspired Bible." We are asking you if you think
> the Christian Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and representing what
> God wants us to know. ALL of the Bible.
> If it helps any, the Genevan Rodent likes you personally. You get him angry at times, but he does like you. ( He was very happy to hear that you are recovering from your stroke. )
But you
> have been BSing the
> folks here. And the
> Calvinist Rodent has
> a very low tolerance
> for
> that.
> The
> DataRat
> .
Theodore M. Seeber
> > I dispute your evidence as mere media hype.
>
> That is your choice but history reveals the evidence as
> many ex Roman Catholics will also confess.
There are 10 times as many Catholics as ex-Catholics. How come the rest
of us haven't had experience with this? Could it be that most priests
aren't pedophiles?
> Paedophile Roman Catholic priests are constantly being reported
> because these priests themselves are still dead in their sins.
> This is why they support an organisation that is riddled with child abuse.
Ah, so now you accuse the innocent along with the guilty. Can anybody say
"false witness"?
> > I didn't say pedophiles specifically, I said inept preachers, which while
> > that covers pedophiles, it also covers embezzelers, liars, cheats, and con
> > artists (of which, there are several in fundamentalist/evangelical
> > christianity).
>
> Not in my church that I know of.
Just as, to my knowledge, despite repeated campaigns to encourage
reporting of pedophile priests in Oregon, I only know of a single,
disproved case.
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> The Calvinist Rodent ISN'T adverse to some joking around.
> (We can have a laugh together before burning you at the stake!)
This is one of your FEW redeeming qualities.
> Basically, it boils down to: Do you believe in all of the Bible,
> (One of the major versions, too, like the NIV, NASB, AV, NKJ you choose.)
> cover-to-cover, Frank ?
("Well...it depends on what the meaning of is, is." William J. Clinton}
version; 1. A description or an account from one point of view,
especially as opposed to another: Your version of the accident differs
from mine. 2.a. A translation from another language. b. Often Version. A
translation of the entire Bible or a part of it. 3. A particular form or
variation of an earlier or original type...
I like each of the VERSIONS above. However, I am proofing a
version ~World English Bible~ that I also find very good.
> Inspired.
YES
> Infallible.
> Inerrant.
NO, to both.
DataRat and all who are following this thread,
On what day did the "Lord's supper" occur in the synoptic gospels,
Passover or not?
On what day did the "Lord's supper" occur in John's gospel, Passover or
not?
> OR: Do you pick and choose what out of the Bible appeals to you?
The Holy Spirit guides me. He reveals the truth! It does NOT matter what
is appealing to me.
> Don't dance around this one. Don't even bother giving a reply like
> "I believe in the inspired Bible." We are asking you if you think
> the Christian Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and representing what
> God wants us to know. ALL of the Bible.
*** See above.
> If it helps any, the Genevan Rodent likes you personally.
Thanks.
> (He was very happy to hear that you are recovering from your stroke.)
Thanks, more news on this to come. It has been a blessing. I have been
drawn closer to God!
> But you have been BSing the folks here.
> And the Calvinist Rodent has a very low tolerance for that.
I do not care about your tolerance level.
I do not expect you to understand Christianity one must have Christ
living in him to do so.
Rev. Frank
The DataRat wrote:
> Why someone would get a mail order "Doctor of Divinity" degree, Frank ?
Just for the ones who would care and to be accurate.
I hold:
B.A. Philosophy Major, Religious Studies Minor, Auburn University, 1980.
M.A. Christian Education, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
1984.
Masters of Religion, Universal Life Church, 1998.
Honorary Doctor of Divinity, Universal Life Church, 1998.
Was ordained by the Universal Life Church, May 09, 1998.
GoldRush
Rev. Frank <revf...@san.rr.com> wrote in article
<36755F7D...@san.rr.com>...
<snipped>
>
>
> > Inspired.
>
>
> YES
>
>
> > Infallible.
>
> > Inerrant.
>
>
> NO, to both.
<snipped>
Frank,
We are very sorry to see that you do not consider Scripture
to be inerrant and infallible.
If a Christian does not believe that the Word of God is inspired,
infallible, and inerrant, he does not truly believe it is authored
by God the Holy Spirit, and all Scripture immediately becomes
subjective and open to private interpretation.
This is strictly warned against [II Peter 1:20].
We are greatly disappointed to know this is your opinion, and
that your thinking is not built upon this crucial foundation of truth.
Michael J. Tobias
>
>
>Rev. Frank <revf...@san.rr.com> wrote in article
><36755F7D...@san.rr.com>...
><snipped>
>>
>
>>
>> > Inspired.
>>
>>
>> YES
>>
>>
>> > Infallible.
>>
>> > Inerrant.
>>
>>
>> NO, to both.
>
>
><snipped>
>
>Frank,
>
>We are very sorry to see that you do not consider Scripture
>to be inerrant and infallible.
>
>If a Christian does not believe that the Word of God is inspired,
>infallible, and inerrant, he does not truly believe it is authored
>by God the Holy Spirit, and all Scripture immediately becomes
>subjective and open to private interpretation.
>
So who's interpretation is authoritative? Yours?
>This is strictly warned against [II Peter 1:20].
>
>We are greatly disappointed to know this is your opinion, and
>that your thinking is not built upon this crucial foundation of truth.
>
>
>--
>GoldRush
>
>For Scriptures & Christian Studies
>visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
>
>
>
Jef
An open mind is fertile soil
A closed mind is asphalt
Rev. Frank
GoldRush wrote:
> Frank,
>
> We are very sorry to see that you do not consider Scripture
> to be inerrant and infallible.
In one of our first exchanges I made this clear!!
> If a Christian does not believe that the Word of God is inspired
I did not say it was NOT inspired!!
> infallible, and inerrant, he does not truly believe it is authored
> by God the Holy Spirit, and all Scripture immediately becomes
> subjective and open to private interpretation.
If the bible was God's WORD written by His Holy finger than it would be
infallible, and inerrant.
So, do this little exercise, and answer these questions.
On what day did the "Lord's supper" occur in the synoptic gospels,
Passover or not?
On what day did the "Lord's supper" occur in John's gospel, Passover or
not?
And email personally with what you find.
> We are greatly disappointed to know this is your opinion, and
> that your thinking is not built upon this crucial foundation of truth.
Your concern is for my spiritual well being and this is why I love you
as I do!
Stephen Adams
>"But this is purely subjective opinion!"
>
>
>Give us a break ! The Luke citation references
>"the poor", the Matthew citation the "poor in spirit".
>Clearly one is more explicit than the other. No
>opinion involved here at all ...except reasoned
>opinion ( something you'd know nothing about ! ).
Another ad hominem. Dind't they teach you that such
arguments are false?
In any event, what you do here is use one verse to
deny the clear meaning of another verse. The verse
in Luke most clearly says "the poor" and you explain
it away with your so-called "more specific" verse.
Sorry, but that won't fly.
>"...by taking the 'clearest' and 'more specific'
> passage, you may well miss the full meaning
> of the more complicated passages."
>
>Sheesh ! THAT is like saying that by having
>less information we can make more informed
>decisions.
The two verses say *different* things, and yet
you believe that it is appropriate to discard and
ignore the clear and plain reading found in Luke.
>"The idea of 'let the clear interpret the unclear'
>or 'specific interpret the less specific' can be
>shown to be poor hermeneutics, since by using it,
>Arminians and Calvinists can't agree on which
>verses to use to interpret the others!"
>
>What you say would be true -if the purpose of
>hermeneutics was NOT to correctly exegete
>Scripture ! But, you think the purpose of
>hermeneutics is to bring agreement between
>Arminians and Calvinists.
No, I do not. I am showing you that your hermeneutic
is false and flawed, and does not lead to "one"
meaning of Scripture. I used the Calvinist/
Arminian debate as an example.
>Sounds like standard Post-Modernism: Truth
>subordinated to peace and harmony !
Your hermeneutic is flawed. That's the
problem. I know the truth, and it is
NOT Calvinism.
GoldRush
Stephen Adams <sad...@MCS.COM> wrote in article
<7542a0$3...@Venus.mcs.net>...
<snipped>
>
> In any event, what you do here is use one verse to
> deny the clear meaning of another verse. The verse
> in Luke most clearly says "the poor" and you explain
> it away with your so-called "more specific" verse.
> Sorry, but that won't fly.
But Steve, you overlook the context of both the Matthew
and Luke verses. Jesus was speaking to the multitudes
in both cases. It is the same event. So one account
cannot deny the meaning of the other. Matthew, in this
case, used more clarification of the same utterance, and
is a superior Scripture to use to understand the full meaning
of the teaching.
<snipped>
> The two verses say *different* things, and yet
> you believe that it is appropriate to discard and
> ignore the clear and plain reading found in Luke.
No part of Scripture should ever be discarded or ignored,
but Matthew 5:3 is the better verse for full understanding.
These are merely two accounts of the same truth taught
by Christ; that the poor in spirit will inherit the kingdom.
<snipped>
> No, I do not. I am showing you that your hermeneutic
> is false and flawed, and does not lead to "one"
> meaning of Scripture. I used the Calvinist/
> Arminian debate as an example.
The only reason for the debate between Arminians and
Calvinists, is from the abusive interpretation of Scripture
by the Arminians.
<snipped>
Eric Sneddon
>Your hermeneutic is flawed. That's the
>problem. I know the truth, and it is
>NOT Calvinism.
>
> -Steve
Steve,
Hermeneutics should only be applied to scripture after it has been proven
that the scripture in question requires it. The meaning of Mark, Matthew,
Luke, and John are sufficiently clear that they do not require any further
Hermeneutic or exegetical treatment. Indeed the type of Hermeneutic that the
Calvinist Rodent is so fond of applying is flawed on many levels, one is
that it destroys the basic Rhetorical Triangle of subject, audience,
purpose, another is that it is meant not to improve the understanding of the
scripture in question, it serves to prove the interpretation of the Genevan
Rodent. Flawed? That's putting it kindly. Indeed the Gospels of Mark, John,
Luke, and Matthew were existent before the collection of the four in the new
testament, thus it would be reasonable to think that each one of them is
sufficient alone, to serve their purpose, which was to spread the Gospel of
Christ, though they serve poorly to spread the Gospel of the Genevan Rodent.
That's food for thought.
Stephen Adams
>
>Stephen Adams <sad...@MCS.COM> wrote in article
><7542a0$3...@Venus.mcs.net>...
><snipped>
>
>> In any event, what you do here is use one verse to
>> deny the clear meaning of another verse. The verse
>> in Luke most clearly says "the poor" and you explain
>> it away with your so-called "more specific" verse.
>> Sorry, but that won't fly.
>
>But Steve, you overlook the context of both the Matthew
>and Luke verses. Jesus was speaking to the multitudes
>in both cases. It is the same event. So one account
>cannot deny the meaning of the other. Matthew, in this
>case, used more clarification of the same utterance, and
>is a superior Scripture to use to understand the full meaning
>of the teaching.
Are you sure they are the same event? One takes place on
the mount, the other on a plain. The texts are not
identical. It could well be two different, yet highly
similar sermons. The point remains is that if you take
the text as inerrant, infalliable and inspired, you cannot
simply explain away the clear meaning of the verse!
><snipped>
>
>> The two verses say *different* things, and yet
>> you believe that it is appropriate to discard and
>> ignore the clear and plain reading found in Luke.
>
>No part of Scripture should ever be discarded or ignored,
>but Matthew 5:3 is the better verse for full understanding.
>These are merely two accounts of the same truth taught
>by Christ; that the poor in spirit will inherit the kingdom.
But don't you believe that both verses are inspired, inerrant
and infalliable?
><snipped>
>
>> No, I do not. I am showing you that your hermeneutic
>> is false and flawed, and does not lead to "one"
>> meaning of Scripture. I used the Calvinist/
>> Arminian debate as an example.
>
>The only reason for the debate between Arminians and
>Calvinists, is from the abusive interpretation of Scripture
>by the Arminians.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. The Arminians
find all of the "choice" and "action" verses to be clear,
and use them to explain the "chosen" and "predestined"
verses. You do the opposite.
Michael J. Tobias
>
>
>Stephen Adams <sad...@MCS.COM> wrote in article
><7542a0$3...@Venus.mcs.net>...
><snipped>
>>
>
>> In any event, what you do here is use one verse to
>> deny the clear meaning of another verse. The verse
>> in Luke most clearly says "the poor" and you explain
>> it away with your so-called "more specific" verse.
>> Sorry, but that won't fly.
>
>But Steve, you overlook the context of both the Matthew
>and Luke verses. Jesus was speaking to the multitudes
>in both cases. It is the same event. So one account
>cannot deny the meaning of the other. Matthew, in this
>case, used more clarification of the same utterance, and
>is a superior Scripture to use to understand the full meaning
>of the teaching.
><snipped>
>
>
>> The two verses say *different* things, and yet
>> you believe that it is appropriate to discard and
>> ignore the clear and plain reading found in Luke.
>
>No part of Scripture should ever be discarded or ignored,
>but Matthew 5:3 is the better verse for full understanding.
>These are merely two accounts of the same truth taught
>by Christ; that the poor in spirit will inherit the kingdom.
>
><snipped>
>
>
>> No, I do not. I am showing you that your hermeneutic
>> is false and flawed, and does not lead to "one"
>> meaning of Scripture. I used the Calvinist/
>> Arminian debate as an example.
>
>The only reason for the debate between Arminians and
>Calvinists, is from the abusive interpretation of Scripture
>by the Arminians.
>
IOW, "the only reason you disagree is because you're wrong." Did
Calvin teach humility?
><snipped>
>
>--
>GoldRush
>
>For Scriptures & Christian Studies
>visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Jef
GoldRush
Eric Sneddon <tgr...@erols.com> wrote in article
<754abu$npg$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
> >Your hermeneutic is flawed. That's the
> >problem. I know the truth, and it is
> >NOT Calvinism.
> >
> > -Steve
>
>
> Steve,
> Hermeneutics should only be applied to scripture after it has been proven
> that the scripture in question requires it. The meaning of Mark, Matthew,
> Luke, and John are sufficiently clear that they do not require any
further
> Hermeneutic or exegetical treatment. Indeed the type of Hermeneutic that
the
> Calvinist Rodent is so fond of applying is flawed on many levels, one is
> that it destroys the basic Rhetorical Triangle of subject, audience,
> purpose,
What in God's name are you talking about?
another is that it is meant not to improve the understanding of the
> scripture in question, it serves to prove the interpretation of the
Genevan
> Rodent. Flawed? That's putting it kindly. Indeed the Gospels of Mark,
John,
> Luke, and Matthew were existent before the collection of the four in the
new
> testament,
What in God's name are you talking about?
thus it would be reasonable to think that each one of them is
> sufficient alone, to serve their purpose, which was to spread the Gospel
of
> Christ, though they serve poorly to spread the Gospel of the Genevan
Rodent.
> That's food for thought.
Food for thought . . .vomit Sneddon!
GoldRush
> ><7542a0$3...@Venus.mcs.net>...
> ><snipped>
> >
> the mount, the other on a plain. The texts are not
> identical. It could well be two different, yet highly
> similar sermons.
Steve,
We must offer serious (very serious) exception to your
remarks offered as exegesis of the Word of God.
It is not up to us to argue hypotheticals. It is up to *you* who claims
to show that the Holy Spirit of God taught through two
"Sermons on the Mount" (or "Plains") with similar language recorded
by the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Please break down the different sermons for the world, and
explain to the whole world reading these posts, seeking
Scriptural answers from God, what the differences are between the two.
<snipped>
kes...@my-dejanews.com
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I dispute your evidence as mere media hype.
> >
> > That is your choice but history reveals the evidence as
> > many ex Roman Catholics will also confess.
>
> There are 10 times as many Catholics as ex-Catholics. How come the rest
> of us haven't had experience with this? Could it be that most priests
> aren't pedophiles?
>
>
> > Paedophile Roman Catholic priests are constantly being reported
> > because these priests themselves are still dead in their sins.
> > This is why they support an organisation that is riddled with child abuse.
>
> Ah, so now you accuse the innocent along with the guilty.
We are all guilty of sin and only through Christ are we set free
from delusion and madness. He and He alone is our one high
Priest, we have no other access to God. Paul explained it better.
> Can anybody say
> "false witness"?
>
> > > I didn't say pedophiles specifically, I said inept preachers, which while
> > > that covers pedophiles, it also covers embezzelers, liars, cheats, and con
> > > artists (of which, there are several in fundamentalist/evangelical
> > > christianity).
> >
> > Not in my church that I know of.
>
> Just as, to my knowledge, despite repeated campaigns to encourage
> reporting of pedophile priests in Oregon, I only know of a single,
> disproved case.
> Ted
Love as I have described it is the only trusted conveyor of truth,
(Please see my questions in today’s replies to "666 The Papal
Number") there is no other trusted conveyor of truth. As your
god and hierarchy so offends this love, so it also offends the
truth. You cannot be trusted in your present state. You are evil
and lost for you will still see my love in hell if need be in order
to save yourself. You are quicksand.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Ah, so now you accuse the innocent along with the guilty.
>
> We are all guilty of sin and only through Christ are we set free
> from delusion and madness. He and He alone is our one high
> Priest, we have no other access to God. Paul explained it better.
Yes, but we're not all guilty of the sin of pedophilia. Some of us have
other, more harmless sins......
> > Just as, to my knowledge, despite repeated campaigns to encourage
> > reporting of pedophile priests in Oregon, I only know of a single,
> > disproved case.
>
> Love as I have described it is the only trusted conveyor of truth,
> (Please see my questions in today’s replies to "666 The Papal
> Number") there is no other trusted conveyor of truth.
This goes against 1 Tim 3:15, in which the pillar and support of truth is
the Church (not love).
> As your
> god and hierarchy so offends this love, so it also offends the
> truth.
Your hierarchy, or rather anarchy, offends this love even more. Take the
log out of your own eye first.
GoldRush
Michael J. Tobias <jt5...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<3675c16d...@news.mindspring.com>...
> "GoldRush" <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
> ><snipped>
> >The only reason for the debate between Arminians and
> >Calvinists, is from the abusive interpretation of Scripture
> >by the Arminians.
> >
> IOW, "the only reason you disagree is because you're wrong." Did
> Calvin teach humility?
We Calvinists disagree with Arminians because they teach false and
incorrect doctrines.
We hate every false way. [Ps. 119:104] This means we must oppose
error and defend truth. It has nothing to do with humility. True humility
is shown by the believer in prayer to his God, not by tolerating sin.
>
> ><snipped>
We answer you because of you asked us to interact with you.
Now, please do not reply
with argument, or we will think you might be guilty of trolling! :>)
Stephen Adams
>> > >Stephen Adams <sad...@MCS.COM> wrote in article
>> ><7542a0$3...@Venus.mcs.net>...
>> ><snipped>
>> Are you sure they are the same event? One takes place on
>> the mount, the other on a plain. The texts are not
>> identical. It could well be two different, yet highly
>> similar sermons.
>
>We must offer serious (very serious) exception to your
>remarks offered as exegesis of the Word of God.
You can do that, but the burden of proof is on YOU. Not
me. I pointed out the flaw. Now you have to prove
your exegesis is correct.
>It is not up to us to argue hypotheticals. It is up to *you* who claims
>to show that the Holy Spirit of God taught through two
>"Sermons on the Mount" (or "Plains") with similar language recorded
>by the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
No, it is YOU who claim that there is only one sermon, despite
obvious differences in the two texts. Since there are differences
for all to see, it is up to the one who claims that they are
the *same* to prove this case. You have not done so.
>Please break down the different sermons for the world, and
>explain to the whole world reading these posts, seeking
>Scriptural answers from God, what the differences are between the two.
They take place in *different* environments (plain vs. mountain) and
use *different* language. Your phony harmonization dies right there.
Eric Sneddon
Stephen Adams wrote:
> They take place in *different* environments (plain vs. mountain) and
> use *different* language. Your phony harmonization dies right there.
>
> -Steve
The times that I have read the Beatitudes, they said different things to me.
Depending on where I was at at the time. Like where it says, "Blessed are ye,
when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of
evil against you falsely, for my sake." sometimes this reads don't persecute
others because they are not Christians, and sometimes it says don't let
others persecute you because of your own beliefs. I know what the passage
means, but I still think it should be allowed to speak to me directly without
the interference of others, nor do I think that what it says to me is subject
to what it says to others, i.e. (the correct exegetical, hermeneutic.)
Eric
Michael J. Tobias
>
>
>Michael J. Tobias <jt5...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><3675c16d...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> "GoldRush" <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ><snipped>
>
>> >The only reason for the debate between Arminians and
>> >Calvinists, is from the abusive interpretation of Scripture
>> >by the Arminians.
>> >
>> IOW, "the only reason you disagree is because you're wrong." Did
>> Calvin teach humility?
>
>We Calvinists disagree with Arminians because they teach false and
> incorrect doctrines.
>
Thank you. Point confirmed.
>We hate every false way. [Ps. 119:104] This means we must oppose
>error and defend truth. It has nothing to do with humility. True humility
>is shown by the believer in prayer to his God, not by tolerating sin.
>
Confirmation #2.
>>
>> ><snipped>
>
>We answer you because of you asked us to interact with you.
>
>Now, please do not reply
>with argument, or we will think you might be guilty of trolling! :>)
>
How convenient. You get the last word and that's the end of the
matter. You have just set yourself up as the guardians of truth. You
place yourself in the position that is only rightly held by God. So,
if you hate every false way, do you now hate yourself?
><snipped>
>> >
>> >--
>> >GoldRush
>> >
>> >For Scriptures & Christian Studies
>> >visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
>
Jef
kes...@my-dejanews.com
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ah, so now you accuse the innocent along with the guilty.
> > We are all guilty of sin and only through Christ are we set free
> > from delusion and madness. He and He alone is our one high
> > Priest, we have no other access to God. Paul explained it better.
>
> Yes, but we're not all guilty of the sin of pedophilia. Some of us have
> other, more harmless sins......
All sin is extremely harmful and leads to delusion, madness, suffering
and death. I am sorry if you find me offensive Ted but I can’t reason
with you. It is as though you loathe the very idea of paradise where
the loving Father’s eternal and infinite imagination is the limit to all
that is.
Infinite love, truth, reason, sanity, bliss, joy ecstasy and wisdom
beats suffering, misery, madness and death every time.
Still, If I can’t tempt you at least I tried.
Take care, Judgement Day coming soon.
Gregory R. Reed
>
> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > Ah, so now you accuse the innocent along with the guilty.
> >
> > from delusion and madness. He and He alone is our one high
> > Priest, we have no other access to God. Paul explained it better.
>
> Yes, but we're not all guilty of the sin of pedophilia. Some of us have
> other, more harmless sins......
Who are you to assess the relative importance of the various sins? Do
you suggest that men have the capacity to weigh morality independently
of their god? That kind of dangerous talk would have gotten you killed
a few centuries ago!
This only goes to demonstrate how people have been creating their own
moralities for millennia. Even when their morality is supposedly issued
from a deity, the people simply pick and choose which moral principles
that are important and which are "harmless".
--
Greg Reed
gregreed @ remove this voyager . net -- As always, private e-mail
responses to any topic in which I participate are welcome.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Yes, but we're not all guilty of the sin of pedophilia. Some of us have
> > other, more harmless sins......
>
> All sin is extremely harmful and leads to delusion, madness, suffering
> and death.
But all sin is not pedophila, and it's wrong of you to assert that it is.
> I am sorry if you find me offensive Ted but I can’t reason
> with you. It is as though you loathe the very idea of paradise where
> the loving Father’s eternal and infinite imagination is the limit to all
> that is.
We are not in that paradise yet, and it is worthless to speak of it until
we are.
> Infinite love, truth, reason, sanity, bliss, joy ecstasy and wisdom
> beats suffering, misery, madness and death every time.
Your infinite love seems a lot like hatred to me.
> Still, If I can’t tempt you at least I tried.
> Take care, Judgement Day coming soon.
Judgement Day is comming soon, but is not the same for everybody.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but we're not all guilty of the sin of pedophilia. Some of us have
> > other, more harmless sins......
>
> Who are you to assess the relative importance of the various sins? Do
> you suggest that men have the capacity to weigh morality independently
> of their god? That kind of dangerous talk would have gotten you killed
> a few centuries ago!
I'm not saying that I do. In fact, in a way, I'm saying that the Pope
does.
> This only goes to demonstrate how people have been creating their own
> moralities for millennia. Even when their morality is supposedly issued
> from a deity, the people simply pick and choose which moral principles
> that are important and which are "harmless".
Yes, that is both religion's bigest failure and greatest success.
kes...@my-dejanews.com
In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9812...@user2.teleport.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > Yes, but we're not all guilty of the sin of pedophilia. Some of us hav=
> e
> > > other, more harmless sins......
> >=20
> > All sin is extremely harmful and leads to delusion, madness, suffering
> > and death.
>
> But all sin is not pedophila, and it's wrong of you to assert that it is.
>
> > I am sorry if you find me offensive Ted but I can=92t reason
> > with you. It is as though you loathe the very idea of paradise where
> > the loving Father=92s eternal and infinite imagination is the limit to al=
> l
> > that is.
>
> We are not in that paradise yet, and it is worthless to speak of it until
> we are.
>
> > Infinite love, truth, reason, sanity, bliss, joy ecstasy and wisdom
> > beats suffering, misery, madness and death every time.
>
> Your infinite love seems a lot like hatred to me.
This is your paranoid spirit at work, you are my equal and I
am commanded by my God to always do what is best for you
as if you were me, as if I was the one who was terribly lost.
I don’t threaten you, you threaten your self.
Here is my reply to another message of yours from yesterday
In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98121...@user2.teleport.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 kes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Only an evil god of madness would see us in hell for ignoring a
> > command to offend the love of the greatest in the kingdom of
> > heaven as revealed in Matthew 18: 1-10. Would you agree on this?
>
> No. For God is not the one who sends us to Hell, it is our own sin which
> condemns us.
Only an evil god of madness would see us in hell for ignoring a
command to offend the love of the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven as revealed in Matthew 18: 1-10.
You are condemning yourself Ted by not answering yes.
> > God’s eternal law is: "Do everything possible to keep love,
> > containing the qualities of caring, sharing, giving and receiving,
> > alive for as long as possible". Would you agree on this?
>
> No.
God is love containing the qualities of caring, sharing, giving
and receiving.
> God's eternal law is: "Love the lord your God with all of your
> heart, mind, and soul and love your neighbor as yourself".
And when we live by these commandments in truth we do everything
possible to keep love, containing the qualities of caring, sharing,
giving and receiving, alive for as long as possible.
> The salvation
> by works you mention is the obvious method of following this law, but
> there are also other methods.
You speak the will of madness.
> > Only lost souls will sacrifice love as revealed in the
> > opening verses of Matthew 18, in order to give themselves
> > pleasure and/or to save themselves. Would you agree on this?
>
> No.
The greatest in the kingdom of God must never be offended.
Thinking otherwise is madness.
> All souls will sacrifice love as revealed in the opening verses of
> Matthew 18, in order to give themselves pleasure and save themselves.
All devout Roman Catholic souls would sacrifice this love into hell.
All who rebel against evil madness will be saved.
By the grace of God we are saved, He alone gives us faith in
Christ. Christ alone is our high priest for "we have one high priest"
and one high priest only. Only this priest can be trusted.
The papacy is re-establishing it’s power.
True opposition to the pope cannot sway the masses as before
and leaders of the free world everywhere are being sucked in
to honour this anti-Christ.
Through the volatile state of the world economy of growing
debt, the unstoppable rapid destruction of our environment,
the appalling degeneration of moral values
and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist
megalomaniacs who believe in a divine duty to destroy
the free world, listen when I say the final conflict is at the
door.
All who hold on to the true faith to the end, the same
shall be saved. No one else but Christ can be trusted in
this world. His will alone is God’s will and He alone is our high
priest, we have no other who can save us.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > > Infinite love, truth, reason, sanity, bliss, joy ecstasy and wisdom
> > > beats suffering, misery, madness and death every time.
> >
> > Your infinite love seems a lot like hatred to me.
>
> This is your paranoid spirit at work, you are my equal and I
> am commanded by my God to always do what is best for you
> as if you were me, as if I was the one who was terribly lost.
> I don’t threaten you, you threaten your self.
>
> Here is my reply to another message of yours from yesterday
In that case, why do you keep posting already debunked lies?
kes...@my-dejanews.com
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Infinite love, truth, reason, sanity, bliss, joy ecstasy and wisdom
> > > > beats suffering, misery, madness and death every time.
> > >
> > > Your infinite love seems a lot like hatred to me.
> >
> > This is your paranoid spirit at work, you are my equal and I
> > am commanded by my God to always do what is best for you
> > as if you were me, as if I was the one who was terribly lost.
> > I don’t threaten you, you threaten your self.
> >
> > Here is my reply to another message of yours from yesterday
>
> In that case, why do you keep posting already debunked lies?
Why do you find the only trusted conveyor of truth so offensive
you cannot value it above yourself?
Theodore M. Seeber
> > In that case, why do you keep posting already debunked lies?
>
> Why do you find the only trusted conveyor of truth so offensive
> you cannot value it above yourself?
You trust Mrs Seventh Day Adventist after her botched 1844 "end of the
world" prophecies?
You're far more guilible than I gave you credit for.....
The DataRat
"The honorary DD was given to me by
the church {ULC} that I was ordained."
That was NOT an "honorary" Doctor of
Divinity degree. The ULC ( Universal Life
Church ) is a diploma mill !
Honorary degrees are awarded by
academically recognized institutions of
higher learning to recognize achievement
in the real world.
YOUR degree was sold to you mail order !
The ULC exists as an organization for the
sole purpose of selling bogus credentials,
and is NOT a real church.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"I am pleased to know that someone
knows that!"
The DataRat is pleased to know that
someone knows that someone knows
that !
DR
kes...@my-dejanews.com
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > > In that case, why do you keep posting already debunked lies?
> >
> > Why do you find the only trusted conveyor of truth so offensive
> > you cannot value it above yourself?
>
> You trust Mrs Seventh Day Adventist after her botched 1844 "end of the
> world" prophecies?
> You're far more guilible than I gave you credit for.....
I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, I trust only the Spirit of Christ
and my own ability to reckon.
Why do you find the only trusted conveyor of truth so offensive
that you cannot value it above yourself?
There is no other Spirit that can save us.
Gregory R. Reed
>
> > Who are you to assess the relative importance of the various sins? Do
> > you suggest that men have the capacity to weigh morality independently
> > of their god? That kind of dangerous talk would have gotten you killed
> > a few centuries ago!
>
> I'm not saying that I do. In fact, in a way, I'm saying that the Pope
> does.
Do you believe in Papal infallibility?
> > This only goes to demonstrate how people have been creating their own
> > moralities for millennia. Even when their morality is supposedly issued
> > from a deity, the people simply pick and choose which moral principles
> > that are important and which are "harmless".
>
> Yes, that is both religion's bigest failure and greatest success.
> Ted
That sounds dangerously like the moral collectivism that I happen to
believe. And I'm about as militantly irreligious as they come!
eas...@banet.net
http://members.tripod.com/~Eastman2/christmas.htm
It's great to be around people who take the time to help others and discuss
important subjects!
Ellis
Rev. Steve Winter
>Here's wishing you a Merry Christmas.
Rev. Steve Winter
--
-={ PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 33600bps / Telnet to PRIME.ORG }=-
http://www.prime.org Home of the PRIME Christian Network
Check the web site for info as 3 god cults embrace sub canine morals.
Patrick Thomas Altman
do we X out Christ if anything it should be written CHRISTmas.
In Him,
Patrick Altman
pa...@wharton.upenn.edu
Rev. Steve Winter wrote in message <373f7ff6....@news.chudys.com>...