jdlongmire

ok, guys, this has been a blast - I have been online debating/discussing all day long -on my day off - I did want to prove to myself that this was a worthy endeavor, but I am tired...hopefully, someone has retrieved a nugget of usefulness from this, but I am outta here for awhile.

JD

(blt - tried waiting, but I gotta go...)

Wiploc

You've got me confused. Are you saying that Calvin wasn't a Calvinist?



Not true.



If god predestined the fall, and god chose to give us total depravity after the fall, is it really fair to say that god didn't work in humanity to have sin?



The Catholics believed people could get justified, could become elect, partially by their own efforts; they had to meet god halfway.

Luther said no, that god chose the elect from the beginning of time, and that the chosen could not become reprobates, because god justified them, he put into them faith and righteousness and the desire to do good works unceasingly.

Calvin said Luther was right, and further, since god chose the elect from the beginning of time, then it followed logically that he also chose the reprobates from the beginning of time. And god not only justified the elect so that they could not fail to do good, but he also "darkened the counsels" and "strenthened the wills" of reprobates who tried to be good, forcing them to sin in accordance with god's will.

So, on the one hand, you are right: Once Calvin took the line that people are totally depraved, I don't see why he had to take the line that god messed with them to keep them depraved. But, on the other hand, regardless of whether you and I think it was necessary, Calvin did take that line.



I believe the bible says god is a liar, or the author of lies, or something like that. I can never find it when I try to look it up, but I occasionally run across it.



The bible is shot thru with that kind of contradiction. You don't get to pick half of a contradiction and say, "This half is true. The other half should be ignored."



There does seem to be a problem there. I think standard doctrine is that the crucifixion erases the taint of Eve's sin. Then we have to do sacraments and good works (Catholic doctrine) or be justified by god (protestant doctrine) to deal with our own sins.

crc

Columbus

I don't know what this sentence means to you. To me it means that if I could stop believing what is obvious I would get eternal joy. I can't do that. Not that I choose not to. I am not free to do it. Not able. Just like I am not able to levitate.



[/QUOTE]

There are three different things here. The salvation as it is offered is one thing. I spend a lot of time with Christians. I could probably pretend I believe that Jesus is God well enough to be convincing. I know the Bible better than most. Maybe if I pretended long enough it would become true.

As explained in Scripture would be a little easier. I just interpret Scripture to suit myself, like everyone else does.

It's the testimony of my own heart that causes the problem. It would be so convenient if I could believe that Jesus is my Personal Saviour. I believe that humans begin at conception, and deliberately offing them is murder. I believe that the most important thing you can do is take care of the "least". I believe that Jesus taught that " material simplicity, peaceful relationships, and caring for the weak is good." because it is true. But not that it is true because He taught it.

My house is small and old, but sturdy and paid for. My car is also small and old, but sturdy and paid for. I prefer them this way. I can afford to spend the bulk of my time on important things. I can spend my time supporting "Friends of Haiti" and generating scholarship money for the local ArtCo-op. I have time to volunteer at the NAACP, because I am not busy making money to support my "things". I try to be someone who supports peace locally and globally.

I generally find myself on the outside of Christianity less because of my theology than because of my ethics. Christians, as a rule, don't believe that the ethics of Jesus are important. They believe that faith is all they need. I don't believe this is true. Faith without works is dead, or worse.

Tom

Columbus

A Christian makes a bunch of claims. Then checks out

BadBadBad

You've said election is a destiny determined by God. It is a pre-determined sequence of events that lead to a final state of communion with God. If election is pre-destined by God, then you are not free to reject it. If A&E were elect as you've said, they are not free to reject it. Yet the Bible says they did. These are your contradictions, not mine.

When you said A&E were elect, you said there was no free will, now you say there was.


If I choose salvation, I am elect. If I am elect, I cannot choose. For example, I don't choose to believe there is a desk in front of me. It's obvious to me, and I can not believe otherwise. To be elect is to not have a choice. God acts such that it's inconceivable to choose otherwise. Since my salvation is pre-determined, in fact, it's impossible for me to choose otherwise. God may pre-determine my salvation by pre-determining his own actions to reveal himself directly. He foresees that I will experience the face of God with unequivocable certainty. I wouldn't choose salvation any more than I choose to believe in this desk. That's how the word elect is defined. There is no choice in election, only you claim A&E were elect and had a choice. You claim they rejected God, only to be elect is to have that choice be impossible. The paradox in your story is still very apparent. You're not levitating, you're just standing on one foot.

I reject your pre-suppositions in this loaded question that God exists and that either reprobate or elect get a choice in salvation. I'll only answer your question in the terms I've already given. I don't desire imaginary gifts from non-existent Gods. I only asked you my question to demonstrate the fallacy inherent in yours. Make your point without fallacy, then we can discuss it.

KingLouie

J.D.,

I haven't read this thread at all. I've been messing around too much with a thread in ~E~, but I'll try to read it when I get some time.

It's hard debating with a bunch of people when you're in the vast minority. And I'm not sure that there's any such thing as "winning" in this debate -- this great debate of our lives.

Not here. Not there. Not anywhere.

If there were, then one of us woulda' already won.

I know that, and I'm fairly certain that everyone else does, too. It's easy to see, when you use some common sense.

That said, I'm sorry to see you go. Hold down your coast, homie -- it's the southerner's creed.

You seem to be a good man, J.D.

Love your neighbor -- all of them.

And I'll see you in 2005.

From the Jungles of A New Year,

Kang Louie

blt to go

wiploc - you are correct. I later withdrew those statements, since I was falling into the "No True Calvinist" fallacy.

My point at the time was that I felt Sproul was creating a double predestination straw man by the use of hyperbole. Apparently not.

blt to go

jdlongmire - you want an unequivocal answer to your question of whether I would "accept salvation?" Let's review the history here.

In my very first post on this thread I introduced the analogy of ice cream. While said analogy has been termed "weak" and has generally been ignored, it has never been addressed! If my "weak" analogies are sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of the belief, imagine what a strong analogy would do!

I asked a variety of questions which were ALSO ignored! post tenebras lux asked a question that was completely ignored! (I see I have to plow through a website with 30 articles and branch websites to try and dig out the answer to luxie's question. It would have been nice to get a short paragraph rather than a link to hours and hours of reading.)

Now you ask a question, and insist this thread must come to a screeching halt until it is answered?

If you had answered my previous questions, you would understand the irrelevancy of your question.

Here are two that demonstrate thus:

1. Did God elect those saved prior to creating the world?
2. Can god change his mind?

Do you see how if your answer to Question 1 is "yes" and your answer to question 2 is "no" why it is completely unnecessary to answer whether I would "accept" his gift? I am assuming that is how you would answer those questions (as Most Calvinists I know would)

BUT, I am also learning through this discourse. I had been raised on the Reformist platform of "Both free will and election. Paradox. God's ways, not our ways. Deal with it." I did not realize there were people that believed in double predestination.

So perhaps you would answer those two questions differently. If so, your answers (and the bible verses to back them up) would have given me some direction.

HOWEVER, if you insist on an answer, I will give it. It doesn't help your position one iota.

Yes, I would accept the gift. (Note, it has to be FREE. No conditions, no ifs, ands or buts. No belief. No acceptance either. Just free) But I would in the same light, accept the gift from Allah, Yahweh, Mormon God, JW's God, RCC God, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, The Great Spirit, etc. Heck, I would "accept" it from any of them. If such creatures existed, I would have no choice.

If a fat man in a red suit appeared magically on my doorstep and gave me a new car and disappeared, after confirming it was not stolen, I would accept it. If a 6 foot 3 inch bunny gave me some chocolate on Easter morning, I would accept it. If some girl (guy?) in wings and fairy dust proposes to provide me some money for the tooth that just got knocked out, I'll take it!

The point brettc was making was that we (he and I, at least) do not believe in any of it!

To try and explain it to you, jdlongmire, in terms you would understand, imagine THAT a fat guy with a white beard and a red suit appeared on your doorstep and said, "Here are the keys to your new car in the driveway. Merry Christmas!"

Would you just jump in the car and start driving it around, telling the world Santa brought you a new car? Or would you check out the title, make sure it was not stolen?

I simply "checked out the car" that christians were claiming god gave me, and found out that if scripture is to be read literally (question for another day, of course) I would have had no choice in either getting or not getting the car. That is election.

So what difference does it make, if I am getting the car or not, and have no choice, whether I believe in Santa?

BadBadBad

It's not a debate. It's a street corner game of three card monty, and we have a wannabe slick con man running the game.

No one's winning, because we've been watching him demo the game before anyone bets. He's just not very good at it. We've heckled him into total embarrassment, and now no one is betting. He's not going to win anything today. We didn't win anything either, but it was sure fun.

But hate your family and butcher strangers by the edge of the sword.

BadBadBad

Love it. Great points. It's been a hell of a merry go round.

If you're still reading longmire, thanks for sitting in. I wanted to learn about this point of view, and you've provided some good information and answered the questions I came looking for. I still don't intend on accepting any imaginary non-gifts from any non-existent Gods. Just let me know when you're ready for Larry the Leprechaun's gifts, and I'll point you in the right direction.

Blt_to_go, thanks for filling in some of the blanks.