Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Calvinism and Arminianism Both Don't Work

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 10:24:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This was just a point I wanted to bring up and get others opinions on. I believe that instead of coming to the text with a Calvinistic or Arminian worldview, we should rather read the text for what it is and let God be God. That being said I see a problem with both Calvinism and Arminianism in Genesis 6 and interestingly enough the two verses are right next to each other.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
(Genesis 6:5-6 ESV)

I think naturally verse 5 stands out as a problem for Arminianism so I won't really comment on it. Specifically the part that says, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

I think verse 6 creates a problem for someone who holds the Calvinistic view. On this particular worldview God would not regret something nor would he grieve. Consider this quote by John Calvin, "Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad;
but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose." (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 426)

If I have misinterpreted something please feel free to tell me and if you have any comments I would love to hear them. Thanks
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 11:38:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is fairly simple, Calvin was wrong. Just because we are labeled calvinsits, doesn't mean we subscribe to the title. Calvin was fallible, and obviously wrong about this.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 12:13:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Hmmm, I don't see a problem either way. In fact, I don't really know of a time when the wickedness of man wasn't great in the earth, so this much refer to a time of tremendous wickedness as expressed in the hyperbole which follows. And I don't doubt abit that in Noah's day, God looked upon man and regretted that He had ever made him. Afterall, that's exactly what the verse says.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 12:16:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 11:38:57 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This is fairly simple, Calvin was wrong. Just because we are labeled calvinsits, doesn't mean we subscribe to the title. Calvin was fallible, and obviously wrong about this.

Could you explain your thoughts a little more? I'm just a little confused because this verse does not seem to fit in with a Calvinist perception of God.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 12:21:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 10:24:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I think naturally verse 5 stands out as a problem for Arminianism so I won't really comment on it. Specifically the part that says, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Please elaborate.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 12:23:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 12:13:47 AM, annanicole wrote:

Hmmm, I don't see a problem either way. In fact, I don't really know of a time when the wickedness of man wasn't great in the earth,

Before the fall?

so this much refer to a time of tremendous wickedness as expressed in the hyperbole which follows.

It seems to me like saying its a hyperbole seems to be a cop out most Arminians use on several key verses. I'm not saying it's not a hyperbole, I'm just asking for some reasoning as to how you are so sure it's a hyperbole.

And I don't doubt abit that in Noah's day, God looked upon man and regretted that He had ever made him. Afterall, that's exactly what the verse says.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 12:29:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 12:23:10 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/24/2013 12:13:47 AM, annanicole wrote:

Hmmm, I don't see a problem either way. In fact, I don't really know of a time when the wickedness of man wasn't great in the earth,

Before the fall?

That'd be the only time - and at times when there were very few men on the earth.

so this much refer to a time of tremendous wickedness as expressed in the hyperbole which follows.

It seems to me like saying its a hyperbole seems to be a cop out most Arminians use on several key verses. I'm not saying it's not a hyperbole, I'm just asking for some reasoning as to how you are so sure it's a hyperbole.

Because the passage literally says that every thought of every man's heart was evil - non-stop. No way that could be literal. The verses to which you refer really aren't naturally a "key" to anything, in my opinion.

And I don't doubt abit that in Noah's day, God looked upon man and regretted that He had ever made him. Afterall, that's exactly what the verse says.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:34:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 12:16:16 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/23/2013 11:38:57 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This is fairly simple, Calvin was wrong. Just because we are labeled calvinsits, doesn't mean we subscribe to the title. Calvin was fallible, and obviously wrong about this.

Could you explain your thoughts a little more? I'm just a little confused because this verse does not seem to fit in with a Calvinist perception of God.


I can't speak for everyone, but the only reason I refer to my self as a Calvinist, is because its easier for people to recognize what I'm talking about. I prefer Reformed.

With that said, Calvin doesn't speak for us. Calvin believes the scriptures, as do we. He was just a big name during the reformation and people started referring to what we believe as Calvinism.

So, how exactly does that passage present an argument for reformed theology?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:36:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 12:29:18 AM, annanicole wrote:
Because the passage literally says that every thought of every man's heart was evil - non-stop. No way that could be literal. The verses to which you refer really aren't naturally a "key" to anything, in my opinion.

Jeremiah says this, Romans says this, and Matthew says this as well.. it seems like he's really trying to express that its not hyperbole.

How can you possibly assert so candidly, that there is no way this is literal!?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:36:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 1:34:02 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 12:16:16 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/23/2013 11:38:57 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This is fairly simple, Calvin was wrong. Just because we are labeled calvinsits, doesn't mean we subscribe to the title. Calvin was fallible, and obviously wrong about this.

Could you explain your thoughts a little more? I'm just a little confused because this verse does not seem to fit in with a Calvinist perception of God.


I can't speak for everyone, but the only reason I refer to my self as a Calvinist, is because its easier for people to recognize what I'm talking about. I prefer Reformed.

Aren't Arminianists Reformed too? Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:31:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 1:36:05 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 12:29:18 AM, annanicole wrote:
Because the passage literally says that every thought of every man's heart was evil - non-stop. No way that could be literal. The verses to which you refer really aren't naturally a "key" to anything, in my opinion.

Jeremiah says this, Romans says this, and Matthew says this as well.. it seems like he's really trying to express that its not hyperbole.

How can you possibly assert so candidly, that there is no way this is literal!?

Because a literalist view of the passage demands that the heart of each and every man on earth be examined on a second-by-second basis for one twenty-four hour period after another ... for an indefinite period of time - with the determination being made, after some consideration, that every thought of every man at every second was ..... evil. The passage says nothing, of course, about women so, if literal, we wouldn't know anything for certain about their state - so we'd have to simply assume. Bear in mind that the passage also, if literal, condemns Noah and his sons and their wives to the same condition. Was every single thought of Noah, his three sons, their three wives - and indeed every thought of every other patriarch who was living at the time (and there were many) .... evil? I think not. Every thought of Methusalah was ... evil? Noah ... evil?

Certainly mankind in general was in a degenerate state. My opinion is that mankind has never been in such a degenerate state as before the flood. The passage, however, states 100% total degeneration (which suits a Calvinist, usually), but I believe the facts surrounding the statement indicate it to be an hyperbole.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:09:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 12:21:00 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/23/2013 10:24:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I think naturally verse 5 stands out as a problem for Arminianism so I won't really comment on it. Specifically the part that says, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Please elaborate.

I could be wrong but I think the argument would go something like if that is true then we cannot choose God. Therefore, it is always and strictly God choosing us which would oppose typical Arminian views.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:12:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:31:40 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/24/2013 1:36:05 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Jeremiah says this, Romans says this, and Matthew says this as well.. it seems like he's really trying to express that its not hyperbole.

How can you possibly assert so candidly, that there is no way this is literal!?

Because a literalist view of the passage demands that the heart of each and every man on earth be examined on a second-by-second basis for one twenty-four hour period after another ... for an indefinite period of time - with the determination being made, after some consideration, that every thought of every man at every second was ..... evil. The passage says nothing, of course, about women so, if literal, we wouldn't know anything for certain about their state - so we'd have to simply assume. Bear in mind that the passage also, if literal, condemns Noah and his sons and their wives to the same condition. Was every single thought of Noah, his three sons, their three wives - and indeed every thought of every other patriarch who was living at the time (and there were many) .... evil? I think not. Every thought of Methusalah was ... evil? Noah ... evil?

Certainly mankind in general was in a degenerate state. My opinion is that mankind has never been in such a degenerate state as before the flood. The passage, however, states 100% total degeneration (which suits a Calvinist, usually), but I believe the facts surrounding the statement indicate it to be an hyperbole.

I'm sure Paradox has a more complete answer, but I think the typical Calvinist response would be that all our thoughts are evil and we are not able to choose good apart from some sort of divine intervention type experience.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 12:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 11:09:31 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/24/2013 12:21:00 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/23/2013 10:24:30 PM, stubs wrote:
I think naturally verse 5 stands out as a problem for Arminianism so I won't really comment on it. Specifically the part that says, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Please elaborate.

I could be wrong but I think the argument would go something like if that is true then we cannot choose God. Therefore, it is always and strictly God choosing us which would oppose typical Arminian views.

To me, that sounds more Pelagian than Arminian, although I don't really know too much about Arminianism, so I may not have any idea what I'm talking about.

'In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.' - Arminius
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 2:19:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 11:12:57 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:31:40 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/24/2013 1:36:05 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Jeremiah says this, Romans says this, and Matthew says this as well.. it seems like he's really trying to express that its not hyperbole.

How can you possibly assert so candidly, that there is no way this is literal!?

Because a literalist view of the passage demands that the heart of each and every man on earth be examined on a second-by-second basis for one twenty-four hour period after another ... for an indefinite period of time - with the determination being made, after some consideration, that every thought of every man at every second was ..... evil. The passage says nothing, of course, about women so, if literal, we wouldn't know anything for certain about their state - so we'd have to simply assume. Bear in mind that the passage also, if literal, condemns Noah and his sons and their wives to the same condition. Was every single thought of Noah, his three sons, their three wives - and indeed every thought of every other patriarch who was living at the time (and there were many) .... evil? I think not. Every thought of Methusalah was ... evil? Noah ... evil?

Certainly mankind in general was in a degenerate state. My opinion is that mankind has never been in such a degenerate state as before the flood. The passage, however, states 100% total degeneration (which suits a Calvinist, usually), but I believe the facts surrounding the statement indicate it to be an hyperbole.

I'm sure Paradox has a more complete answer, but I think the typical Calvinist response would be that all our thoughts are evil and we are not able to choose good apart from some sort of divine intervention type experience.

Well, yeah, that's about it: it takes a one miracle after another to get a person saved and to keep a person saved. I would anticipate that hardcore Calvinistss would say that Noah and his seven passengers were 100% evil, 100% of the time, until they "found favor", and God smacked with a miraculous conversion. (Of course, the details of such a conversion are left out.) Then Noah spent decades building his ark and preaching, hoping God would intervene and miraculously cause some of the degenerates to pay attention to what he was saying. But, alas, He didn't - He didn't step in. So they all drowned. I, of course, would say that the remainder of humanity simply chose not to heed Noah's preaching. A Calvinist would say, I guess, that God did not allow them to heed it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 3:47:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:31:40 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/24/2013 1:36:05 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 12:29:18 AM, annanicole wrote:
Because the passage literally says that every thought of every man's heart was evil - non-stop. No way that could be literal. The verses to which you refer really aren't naturally a "key" to anything, in my opinion.

Jeremiah says this, Romans says this, and Matthew says this as well.. it seems like he's really trying to express that its not hyperbole.

How can you possibly assert so candidly, that there is no way this is literal!?

Because a literalist view of the passage demands that the heart of each and every man on earth be examined on a second-by-second basis for one twenty-four hour period after another ... for an indefinite period of time - with the determination being made, after some consideration, that every thought of every man at every second was ..... evil. The passage says nothing, of course, about women so, if literal, we wouldn't know anything for certain about their state - so we'd have to simply assume. Bear in mind that the passage also, if literal, condemns Noah and his sons and their wives to the same condition. Was every single thought of Noah, his three sons, their three wives - and indeed every thought of every other patriarch who was living at the time (and there were many) .... evil? I think not. Every thought of Methusalah was ... evil? Noah ... evil?

Anna, all of mans ways are evil. The only reason we aren't all running around murdering and raping eachother, is because God is restraining us. Maybe your more righteous then I am, but I feel whole hearted conviction when I hear the law, beacuse I know its true; I am a sinful piece of sh*t.

My thoughts are to riddled with sin, after reflecting for too long I can only break down as paul did in romans 7-- What a wretched man I am.

Speaking of which, I supposed you believe Paul was simply being dramatic when he said:

18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do"this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

How can he say that good doesn't dwell in him, yet he desires to do good? Isn't even the desire to do good, good?

So then, what is it that creates the desire to do good, since it is clearly not him? The answer is: The holy spirit.

So every thought that belongs to man is sinful, and all the good and fruitful desires are the result of the spirit.

Certainly mankind in general was in a degenerate state. My opinion is that mankind has never been in such a degenerate state as before the flood. The passage, however, states 100% total degeneration (which suits a Calvinist, usually), but I believe the facts surrounding the statement indicate it to be an hyperbole.

I've conceded to there being hyperboles in scripture. However, applying that to such a plain teaching, would be calling God a liar.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 4:01:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 2:19:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
Well, yeah, that's about it: it takes a one miracle after another to get a person saved and to keep a person saved.

It takes one miracle: Regeneration. Savlation is a final state anna, so it makes absolutley no sense to say 'keeping a person saved'. If your condemned to hell, how could it make any logical sense to say you were at one point saved?

I would anticipate that hardcore Calvinistss would say that Noah and his seven passengers were 100% evil, 100% of the time, until they "found favor", and God smacked with a miraculous conversion. (Of course, the details of such a conversion are left out.)

Lol @ hardcore. With out the faith that God distributed to Noah (which is the favor he found with him), Noah would have drown with the rest of the world. God chose noah to be faithful, and by this faith of Noahs was he considered righteous. Noah did nothing to merit Gods favor. This is called grace, and Noahs story is a great example of it.

Then Noah spent decades building his ark and preaching, hoping God would intervene and miraculously cause some of the degenerates to pay attention to what he was saying. But, alas, He didn't - He didn't step in. So they all drowned.

Another prime example. No one would come to God unless he called them. Even when a prophet is standing before them, proclaiming the truth. I hope that everyone will be regenerated too, I hope that God opens the eyes of the world... but what does that have to do with anything?

I, of course, would say that the remainder of humanity simply chose not to heed Noah's preaching. A Calvinist would say, I guess, that God did not allow them to heed it.

Of course they chose not to heed Noah's preaching.. this is the default position of man. No one can choose him, because no one wants to choose him; including Noah.

What surprising, isn't that no one chose him, it's that he even chose noah and his family.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 4:28:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 3:47:56 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:31:40 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/24/2013 1:36:05 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 12:29:18 AM, annanicole wrote:
Because the passage literally says that every thought of every man's heart was evil - non-stop. No way that could be literal. The verses to which you refer really aren't naturally a "key" to anything, in my opinion.

Jeremiah says this, Romans says this, and Matthew says this as well.. it seems like he's really trying to express that its not hyperbole.

How can you possibly assert so candidly, that there is no way this is literal!?

Because a literalist view of the passage demands that the heart of each and every man on earth be examined on a second-by-second basis for one twenty-four hour period after another ... for an indefinite period of time - with the determination being made, after some consideration, that every thought of every man at every second was ..... evil. The passage says nothing, of course, about women so, if literal, we wouldn't know anything for certain about their state - so we'd have to simply assume. Bear in mind that the passage also, if literal, condemns Noah and his sons and their wives to the same condition. Was every single thought of Noah, his three sons, their three wives - and indeed every thought of every other patriarch who was living at the time (and there were many) .... evil? I think not. Every thought of Methusalah was ... evil? Noah ... evil?

Anna, all of mans ways are evil. The only reason we aren't all running around murdering and raping eachother, is because God is restraining us. Maybe your more righteous then I am, but I feel whole hearted conviction when I hear the law, beacuse I know its true; I am a sinful piece of sh*t.

More righteous? Dunno. I know I do not have the idea that the only reason I don't go steal my neighbor's lawnmower is that God somehow stepped in and miraculously restrained me. God does restrain, but He does so through the word.

As far as all of man's ways being evil, no. Not all of them. Not even most of them. A toddler ambles across the floor to its mother. That's not evil. A brother and sister sharing a few toys. Not evil. A kid opening a door for an old lady. That's not evil. A young man picking up a woman's handerkerchief or something when she drops it. Not evil.

My thoughts are to riddled with sin, after reflecting for too long I can only break down as paul did in romans 7-- What a wretched man I am.

You may be wretched compared to example set by Christ. You may be wretched as opposed to the goals you set for yourself. But as far as being 100% evil, I tend to doubt it.

Speaking of which, I supposed you believe Paul was simply being dramatic when he said:

18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do"this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

How can he say that good doesn't dwell in him, yet he desires to do good? Isn't even the desire to do good, good?

Paul isn't even representing the condition of the Christian unless you are saying that a regenerated Christian has win dwelling in him. To me, saying sin "dwells" in the Christian means sin "has control" over the Christian. The Spirit has control of the Christian, through the word, when a Christian sins, sin is merely an intruder - not a dweller. The passage flows about the same grammatically as John 12: 44, "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me."

And aside from the mind - the intellect, the "flesh" is neither sinful or pure. It's indifferent. Neither morally good or bad. That's exactly why a retard is not accountable for his actions.

So then, what is it that creates the desire to do good, since it is clearly not him? The answer is: The holy spirit.

Paul had the Holy Spirit when he wrote that. We have the Spirit as well, when the Spirit leads us, directs us, through the word.

So every thought that belongs to man is sinful, and all the good and fruitful desires are the result of the spirit.

Certainly mankind in general was in a degenerate state. My opinion is that mankind has never been in such a degenerate state as before the flood. The passage, however, states 100% total degeneration (which suits a Calvinist, usually), but I believe the facts surrounding the statement indicate it to be an hyperbole.

I've conceded to there being hyperboles in scripture. However, applying that to such a plain teaching, would be calling God a liar.

LOL @ calling Romans 7 and 8 "plain teaching". Romans is typically one of the most difficult books to study.

"Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve" is pretty plain
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 4:44:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Paradox: "It takes one miracle: Regeneration."

Reply: And that's one too many. Whoever said regeneration is a miracle?

Paradox: "Savlation is a final state anna, so it makes absolutley no sense to say 'keeping a person saved'."

Reply: Why, salvation is used in a number of ways: (1) saved from physical peril, (2) Christ Himself, (3) the remission of past sins, (4) the ultimate salvation in heaven.

Paradox: "If your condemned to hell, how could it make any logical sense to say you were at one point saved?"

Reply: Sure it does. If at the judgement, a person winds up lost, perhaps he is one of those vines that bore no fruit and is cast into the fire.

Paradox: "With out the faith that God distributed to Noah (which is the favor he found with him),"

Reply: The passage never says God distributed anything to Noah. "Finding favor" does not equate with "distributing faith."

Paradox: "God chose noah to be faithful, and by this faith of Noahs was he considered righteous."

Reply: God elected the believer - and Noah was a believer. I'd like to see these passages on the salvation of Noah to which you refer.

Paradox: "Noah did nothing to merit Gods favor."

Reply: Nobody said he did. God's grace extends to believers. Noah was a believer.

Paradox: "No one would come to God unless he called them."

Reply: "Come unto me, ye that are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest ... " Every person is called of God, through the word. Some respond favorably, some do not.

Paradox: "I hope that God opens the eyes of the world... but what does that have to do with anything?"

Reply: So do I. We are quickened by the Spirit, operating through the word. When you heed the words of a preacher, you are being quickened by the Spirit. The word is the sword of the Spirit - the piercing instrument that He uses to reach the human heart.

Paradox: "Of course they chose not to heed Noah's preaching.. this is the default position of man."

Reply: It was the position of those men

Paradox: "What surprising, isn't that no one chose him, it's that he even chose noah and his family."

Reply: Noah found favor in God's eyes because he was a believer.

The big difference is that you say God specifically picks out this person and that person, swoops in with a miracle because He made them so rotten and depraved to start with, regenerates them with or without the word, makes believers out of them, and miraculously sustains them. I say the Spirit of God makes believers through the word. I've also said, as you know, that nobody can name a single thing that the Spirit does in conviction and conversion that the word doesn't do just as well. There's a reason for that: the Spirit operates through the word
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:10:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why I am neither Calvinist or Arminian (anymore) in a nutshell.

As I see it:

Calvinists don't take the "all texts" seriously enough.

Arminians don't take the "sovereignty" texts seriously enough.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:31:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:10:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why I am neither Calvinist or Arminian (anymore) in a nutshell.

As I see it:

Calvinists don't take the "all texts" seriously enough.


Could you explain this a bit more?

@Anna - I'll respond to your posts when I get home.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:54:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:31:56 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:10:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why I am neither Calvinist or Arminian (anymore) in a nutshell.

As I see it:

Calvinists don't take the "all texts" seriously enough.


Could you explain this a bit more?


I'm talking about the texts that Arminians typically appeal to in showing that God loves and wants to save everyone. I'm sure you know most if not all of them since the Arminian vs Calvinist debate is an old and worn one. I'll be happy to refresh your memory, though, upon request. I'm aware that Calvinists will argue that what the texts really mean is God only has that kind of saving love for his elect (which is not everyone) but I do not find that plausible at all. Either through exegesis, theology, or philosophy.

@Anna - I'll respond to your posts when I get home.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:11:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 4:28:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
More righteous? Dunno. I know I do not have the idea that the only reason I don't go steal my neighbor's lawnmower is that God somehow stepped in and miraculously restrained me. God does restrain, but He does so through the word.

It could be that you just don't want your neigbors lawmower ;p. Seriously though, covetting is something we all do, so had God no kept you from stealing it, you would-- whether or not you acknowledge that it's him restraining you.

As far as all of man's ways being evil, no. Not all of them. Not even most of them. A toddler ambles across the floor to its mother. That's not evil. A brother and sister sharing a few toys. Not evil. A kid opening a door for an old lady. That's not evil. A young man picking up a woman's handerkerchief or something when she drops it. Not evil.

You're being rather semantical. The passage reads: The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

If not even most of mans thoughts, or desires are evil, then this is a lie. Hyperbole can't save you here. This isn't comparing man to snakes, or there words to poison, or camels and needles. It says every inclination of mans desires (thoughts of the heart) are evil. If God doesn't mean what he is saying, then this is incredibly deceptive.

For me it's simple, but you have to appeal to your intuition and emotions; you let it get in the way of the truth. Whether you like it or not.

You may be wretched compared to example set by Christ. You may be wretched as opposed to the goals you set for yourself. But as far as being 100% evil, I tend to doubt it.

Uh, is there another standard that matters? The only reason anyone isn't 100% evil is because of God. From atheists, to muslims, from believers to anit-theists.

Paul isn't even representing the condition of the Christian unless you are saying that a regenerated Christian has win dwelling in him. To me, saying sin "dwells" in the Christian means sin "has control" over the Christian. The Spirit has control of the Christian, through the word, when a Christian sins, sin is merely an intruder - not a dweller. The passage flows about the same grammatically as John 12: 44, "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me."

WHAT!? Yes sin absolutely dwells in us.

Rom. 7
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God"s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Everything Paul is saying about his struggle with sin is in the present tense.
No wonder romans is so hard for you, it contradicts almost all of your beliefs.

And aside from the mind - the intellect, the "flesh" is neither sinful or pure. It's indifferent. Neither morally good or bad. That's exactly why a retard is not accountable for his actions.

Wrong.

So then, what is it that creates the desire to do good, since it is clearly not him? The answer is: The holy spirit.

Paul had the Holy Spirit when he wrote that. We have the Spirit as well, when the Spirit leads us, directs us, through the word.

So why are you having so much trouble with these passages? Nothing you've said so far makes any sense, and directly contradicts what Paul is saying, and what God said in Gen. 6.

LOL @ calling Romans 7 and 8 "plain teaching". Romans is typically one of the most difficult books to study.

"Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve" is pretty plain

It's the most difficult for anyone who believes as you do. And, I can take 8 words from anything and make them seem to say something different then they do.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:31:56 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:10:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why I am neither Calvinist or Arminian (anymore) in a nutshell.

As I see it:

Calvinists don't take the "all texts" seriously enough.


Could you explain this a bit more?


I'm talking about the texts that Arminians typically appeal to in showing that God loves and wants to save everyone. I'm sure you know most if not all of them since the Arminian vs Calvinist debate is an old and worn one. I'll be happy to refresh your memory, though, upon request. I'm aware that Calvinists will argue that what the texts really mean is God only has that kind of saving love for his elect (which is not everyone) but I do not find that plausible at all. Either through exegesis, theology, or philosophy.

How is that completely unplausible? I could understand not satisfactory, but not outside the realm of reason.

I'm sure you have family that you love, and friends that you love. Do you love your friends as much as your mom and dad? Do you think your mom and dad love their friends or co-workers as much as they love you?

I'm sure they care for other people, and care enough to go out of there way for them at times.

God is this same way with his children. He loves them differently then non-believers, and protects them in a way that he would only do for his children. If you're friend stole something from you, you'd probably reconsider being his friend, but if your child does so, you'll discipline them and love them still.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:53:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm, Calvinism and Arminianism both don't work, well, could that have to do with the possibility that classic Christian supernaturalist theology and its traditional conceptualization of the Divine as both anthropomorphic and ausserweltliche (extraworldly) is indeed profoundly flawed?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:55:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:53:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, Calvinism and Arminianism both don't work, well, could that have to do with the possibility that classic Christian supernaturalist theology and its traditional conceptualization of the Divine as both anthropomorphic and ausserweltliche (extraworldly) is indeed profoundly flawed?

It could, but it doesn't.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 3:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"No wonder romans is so hard for you, it contradicts almost all of your beliefs."

Haha. That's because I do not blame God for everything.

Why are you that way? God did it
What did you change? God did it
Why are you saved? God did it
Why are you lost? God did it
Why did you lie? Because God didn't prevent it
Why did you tell the truth? Because God restrained me from lying
Why did you steal that? Because God didn't prevent it
Why did you NOT steal that? Because God restrained me
Why are you depraved? Adam sinned - I inherited like my eye color

I happened to google "Romans 7 commentary", and the third response carried the caption, "The last two decades have seen no end of publication of commentaries and interpretations of Romans 7:14-25." That's why I said it's difficult. I will admit that one who takes Romans, and disregards the other 65 books has an easier time .... with Romans. And he better pretty much stay in Romans. That's why you run there. Every time. From the other books, you'll drag out a poetic verse here and there. But Romans? You stay there.

And aside from the mind - the intellect, the "flesh" is neither sinful or pure. It's indifferent. Neither morally good or bad. That's exactly why a retard is not accountable for his actions.

Wrong.

You mean you think a piece of skin is sinful, like if someone gets a skin graft? He lost some sin in a car wreck, but the darn hospital grafted some more sin back in its place? Simply saying "wrong" doesn't make it wrong.

WHAT!? Yes sin absolutely dwells in us.

You are a saved person, regenerated, yet sin dwells in you? I had previously said, "saying sin 'dwells' in the Christian means sin 'has control' over the Christian." To this, you agree? So I suppose, to Calvinist thinking, you have been regenerated, born again, given a new heart (like Saul was before he committed suicide) - yet sin has control over you? In other words, you are just like you were before regeneration? Or maybe you were 100% evil, and God did a 50% make-over?

I have no problem with sin dwelling in you or anyone else as an intruder. Don't you claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you as well. You have Holy Spirit and sin BOTH - under the same roof?

Nothing you've said so far makes any sense, and directly contradicts what Paul is saying, and what God said in Gen. 6.

Be specific. Blanket assertions like "wrong" and "doesn't make any sense" mean zilch.

It's the most difficult for anyone who believes as you do. And, I can take 8 words from anything and make them seem to say something different then they do.

Oh, I know you can very well. I've seen you do it multiple times. LOL. I remember you doing just that with Rom 5: 18,

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

The eight words, undoubtedly the eight words of God through Joshua "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve."

Joshua continued, "but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Did Joshua have a choice? Not at all, as per Calvinism.

What's more: the people to whom Joshua spoke said, "The Lord our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey." Did they have a choice? Not at all, as per Calvinism. It's about like this: they were told to choose, they chose, but they didn't choose - they had no choice in the matter. If they chose God, God did it. Had they rejected God, God did it by inaction.

*******

You may be wretched compared to example set by Christ. You may be wretched as opposed to the goals you set for yourself. But as far as being 100% evil, I tend to doubt it.

Uh, is there another standard that matters? The only reason anyone isn't 100% evil is because of God. From atheists, to muslims, from believers to anit-theists.

I didn't say anything about a standard that matters. There are plenty of standards. Are you wretched compared to your goals? your potential? your neighbor? Jesus Christ? The point was that I doubt you are 100% evil. You couldn't be. And you never were.

You actually think that two todders share toys for awhile are doing so because God caused it? Then after about an hour, when they get fed up with the sharing, one of them tries to hog the toys because God didn't step in and miraculously prevent it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 9:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 1:30:41 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:31:56 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:10:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why I am neither Calvinist or Arminian (anymore) in a nutshell.

As I see it:

Calvinists don't take the "all texts" seriously enough.


Could you explain this a bit more?


I'm talking about the texts that Arminians typically appeal to in showing that God loves and wants to save everyone. I'm sure you know most if not all of them since the Arminian vs Calvinist debate is an old and worn one. I'll be happy to refresh your memory, though, upon request. I'm aware that Calvinists will argue that what the texts really mean is God only has that kind of saving love for his elect (which is not everyone) but I do not find that plausible at all. Either through exegesis, theology, or philosophy.

How is that completely unplausible?

Because I don't believe it does justice to the aforementioned texts and seems to me to be quite an implausible reading of the texts, all things considered.

I could understand not satisfactory, but not outside the realm of reason.


I'm sure you have family that you love, and friends that you love. Do you love your friends as much as your mom and dad? Do you think your mom and dad love their friends or co-workers as much as they love you?

I'm sure they care for other people, and care enough to go out of there way for them at times.


I'd find this line of thought more plausible if I wasn't inclined to think that the fact that I don't love some stranger in Bulgaria as much as I love myself or my friends or family an obviously very human failing in carrying out Jesus' commandments. If I don't care about their good and well-being as much as I care for my own it's because of my human limitations and sin. I don't think that that particular aspect of my own love taps into anything particularly deep about Gods' nature except to show that I have a long, long way to go in working on my moral failures and such. God does not have these limitations and failures and His own sin getting in the way of loving people. It would cost him nothing to love all humans with the same sort of saving love that Calvinists say he loves his specially chosen elect with.

God is this same way with his children. He loves them differently then non-believers, and protects them in a way that he would only do for his children. If you're friend stole something from you, you'd probably reconsider being his friend, but if your child does so, you'll discipline them and love them still.

This would make more sense if it weren't for the fact that according to your theology those that he doesn't treat as his children are doomed to an eternity of torment that he ordained and there was literally nothing they could do about it because he made them that way.

What sort of good, loving father (who has the means to save all 3) saves 1 of his 3 drowning, freezing disobedient children (hey, he told them not to go ice skating) just to show that he was under no obligation to save them all because he already warned them about the danger. Answer: that isn't a good, loving father. You, I, and every morally decent person on earth knows that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:10:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:55:10 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:53:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, Calvinism and Arminianism both don't work, well, could that have to do with the possibility that classic Christian supernaturalist theology and its traditional conceptualization of the Divine as both anthropomorphic and ausserweltliche (extraworldly) is indeed profoundly flawed?

It could, but it doesn't.

I humbly beg to differ. Btw, as I notice that you're a fellow communist you might perhaps be interested in my new post in the society section in which I take a critical look at capitalism and its quite ideologically lame apologists.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.