dermdoc said:So do you think they do not accept it because they are predestined not to accept it(Calvinism)or do you think they reject it via free will? I believe the latter.Frok said:
It's both inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive in that it's available to all tongues, tribes, and nations but exclusive in that it is the only way and not all will accept it.
It is very worked out, make no mistake, and impressively constructed.dermdoc said:
So Calvinism does work like I said? Nd we have no control over being able to go through the narrow gate, correct? So what difference does anything we do make?
That's not the Calvinist belief. The belief is we cannot call upon the Lord without being elect, for God must cause us to be born again in order to be born of the Spirit and even be able to have faith. And if we are born of the Spirit, God's call is effectual and we will respond. On the other hand, when we are dead in our sins, we are unable to call upon the Lord until awaken by Him.dermdoc said:And of course, if you are a Calvinist, you do not even need to call upon the name of the Lord if you are of the "elect". And on the other side, if you are not of the "elect", calling on the name of the Lord does zero good.Frok said:Quote:
was inclusive to all "who called upon the name of the Lord will be saved" Romans 10:13.
I might have read his view incorrectly but I think what the Lewis quote said was those who don't call on the name of the Lord could be saved if they followed their religion devoutly.
Basically agree with your take there. Particularly there are times when "on the fence" about what Augustine thought, or some of the others on this question. Put another way, the Reformation claim that Calvinism represents a genuine "take" at least from some of the Church fathers and can derive from Council of Orange and others seems to have some substance. In other words, it is best dealt with by re-examining in a non-politicized context, rather than relying on post-Reformation denunciations. The Orthodox's take on the Reformation and Calvinism in particular is probably very instructive here, and should be looked at closer. Because by that time and after, they had less local political stake in the quarrel. For the same reason, some of the finest Western vs Eastern catholic dialogue takes place around the 15th C, when Orthodox theologians fleeing the Turks get to have some input and discussions with their Western counterparts.Frok said:dermdoc said:So do you think they do not accept it because they are predestined not to accept it(Calvinism)or do you think they reject it via free will? I believe the latter.Frok said:
It's both inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive in that it's available to all tongues, tribes, and nations but exclusive in that it is the only way and not all will accept it.
Personally I believe we have free will but there are times when I am on the fence.
k2aggie07 said:
It is not about smart or not. There is no requirement to be intelligent to accept God. But we all have a choice. God calls everyone.
We are creatures of dirt, but made with a rational spirit in the divine image. To lose free will makes us like animals.
Yes, that is one of the forms have heard. But it goes to the point -- that tends to affirm the angle that a great deal of the energy and even dislocation and unrest governments have spent legislating and dwelling on some of the particulars is to no real end, and might have offered ways to reach some compromises sooner before everything got so upside down and really with no boundaries at all. There are a few issues where just saying it is `secularly permissible' would have given a lot more room to maneuver. And yet often, the presentation can be very hardline.Like the age of the Earth -- just boot that---what are the stakes? Why add that static?Texaggie7nine said:
The way they play it is, you will live as a Christian if you are of his elect. You have no control over the matter, what you end up doing or thinking you decide was decided long before you existed in this world. If you are his elect you can't decide "what does it matter what I do if it's already decided?" Because you cannot resist his will to do as he intended.
And yet, no one things the Apostles set upon Jesus and started carving him up at the Last Supper. The statement is not meant to mock -- but to illustrate: WHAT changed between then and John 6? It was no longer `literal' --- so the phrasing has apparently a different meaning--- arguably no less offensive or palatable to some of the crowd, but clearly not what 21st C English thinks "eating" is. That said, agree that you see the differentiation there---and it is one of those impressive arguments mentioned before.Quote:
I've explained John 6 before. But it seems I have to again. Jesus has just fed the 5000, he has just spend days with the multitudes, men seeing jesus face to face, being ministered and seeing miracles. Jesus says something great "no one can come to the father except through me" (none of us reject that right?). Then he lays down "you must eat of my flesh" people start questioning jesus, then he says if you have a hard time with that then let me say this "none can come to me unless the father enables him." At that point the multitudes abandon jesus.
So if you are not of the "elect", then you will not call on the Lord? Or can you but it is just not effective?Pro Sandy said:That's not the Calvinist belief. The belief is we cannot call upon the Lord without being elect, for God must cause us to be born again in order to be born of the Spirit and even be able to have faith. And if we are born of the Spirit, God's call is effectual and we will respond. On the other hand, when we are dead in our sins, we are unable to call upon the Lord until awaken by Him.dermdoc said:And of course, if you are a Calvinist, you do not even need to call upon the name of the Lord if you are of the "elect". And on the other side, if you are not of the "elect", calling on the name of the Lord does zero good.Frok said:Quote:
was inclusive to all "who called upon the name of the Lord will be saved" Romans 10:13.
I might have read his view incorrectly but I think what the Lewis quote said was those who don't call on the name of the Lord could be saved if they followed their religion devoutly.
If understand right, definitely the first, not the latter. The human nature will never choose to call on the Lord wiithout being enabled. By the theology, if somehow one does, I believe it certainly says that God will answer, and it will be effective. So it is the first that can't happen. I think the second (to be ineffective) is not possible, even hypothetically, in that worldview.Quote:
So if you are not of the "elect", then you will not call on the Lord? Or can you but it is just not effective?
You cannot, because you are completely dead in your sins.dermdoc said:So if you are not of the "elect", then you will not call on the Lord? Or can you but it is just not effective?Pro Sandy said:That's not the Calvinist belief. The belief is we cannot call upon the Lord without being elect, for God must cause us to be born again in order to be born of the Spirit and even be able to have faith. And if we are born of the Spirit, God's call is effectual and we will respond. On the other hand, when we are dead in our sins, we are unable to call upon the Lord until awaken by Him.dermdoc said:And of course, if you are a Calvinist, you do not even need to call upon the name of the Lord if you are of the "elect". And on the other side, if you are not of the "elect", calling on the name of the Lord does zero good.Frok said:Quote:
was inclusive to all "who called upon the name of the Lord will be saved" Romans 10:13.
I might have read his view incorrectly but I think what the Lewis quote said was those who don't call on the name of the Lord could be saved if they followed their religion devoutly.
Any. I am saying that there are even today alot of issues that are fought over ---- by the Calvinist view, if what is done does not matter --- why tie up all that energy? Was simply saying it was another reason it doesn't seem to jibe with how the eartly church saw its role.Texaggie7nine said:
You kind of lost me, as I was replying to Dermdoc. Which governments are you talking about and what legislation?
Well I think what makes the Calvinist view so convenient is that it isn't supposed to changed how anyone acts, it just describes everything as "perfectly as God willed it". So if you pushed for your government to make restrictions or ways to control people, well God willed that.titan said:Any. I am saying that there are even today alot of issues that are fought over ---- by the Calvinist view, if what is done does not matter --- why tie up all that energy? Was simply saying it was another reason it doesn't seem to jibe with how the eartly church saw its role.Texaggie7nine said:
You kind of lost me, as I was replying to Dermdoc. Which governments are you talking about and what legislation?
titan said:And yet, no one things the Apostles set upon Jesus and started carving him up at the Last Supper. The statement is not meant to mock -- but to illustrate: WHAT changed between then and John 6? It was no longer `literal' --- so the phrasing has apparently a different meaning--- arguably no less offensive or palatable to some of the crowd, but clearly not what 21st C English thinks "eating" is. That said, agree that you see the differentiation there---and it is one of those impressive arguments mentioned before.Quote:
I've explained John 6 before. But it seems I have to again. Jesus has just fed the 5000, he has just spend days with the multitudes, men seeing jesus face to face, being ministered and seeing miracles. Jesus says something great "no one can come to the father except through me" (none of us reject that right?). Then he lays down "you must eat of my flesh" people start questioning jesus, then he says if you have a hard time with that then let me say this "none can come to me unless the father enables him." At that point the multitudes abandon jesus.
No I didn't. I noted what you said was the meat about being enabled -- ---I was making an aside point. Which could have bearing on the degree of what they were expected to understand.The Debt said:titan said:And yet, no one things the Apostles set upon Jesus and started carving him up at the Last Supper. The statement is not meant to mock -- but to illustrate: WHAT changed between then and John 6? It was no longer `literal' --- so the phrasing has apparently a different meaning--- arguably no less offensive or palatable to some of the crowd, but clearly not what 21st C English thinks "eating" is. That said, agree that you see the differentiation there---and it is one of those impressive arguments mentioned before.Quote:
I've explained John 6 before. But it seems I have to again. Jesus has just fed the 5000, he has just spend days with the multitudes, men seeing jesus face to face, being ministered and seeing miracles. Jesus says something great "no one can come to the father except through me" (none of us reject that right?). Then he lays down "you must eat of my flesh" people start questioning jesus, then he says if you have a hard time with that then let me say this "none can come to me unless the father enables him." At that point the multitudes abandon jesus.
That's hilarious. You just ignored the meat of the passage because you dont like the potatoes.
Your Greek for author is wrong too. "Author" in Hebrews is archegos. It means founder, literally first leader. (cf Acts 3:15 the Prince of Life).Quote:
543 apeitheia(from 1 /A "not" and 3982 /peitho, "persuaded") properly, someone not persuaded, referring to their willful unbelief, i.e. the refusal to be convinced by God's voice. This is the core-meaning of the entire word-family: 543 (apeitheia), 544 (apeitheo), 545 (apeithes). All these cognates focus on man's decision to reject God's offers of faith, i.e. refusal to be persuaded in their heart concerning obeying His will (Word).
Cognate: 545 apeithes (an adjective) literally, unwilling to be persuaded (by God) which shows itself in outward disobedience (outward spiritual rebellion); disobedient because unpersuaded.
545 /apeithes ("unpersuaded") begins with the decision to reject what God prefers, with His offer to persuade about His preferred-will (cf. 2307 /thelema). See 543 (apeitheia).
dermdoc said:
Why would they have come to hear Jesus if they were completely depraved?
I actually agree but would not those folks then be displaying free will?The Debt said:dermdoc said:
Why would they have come to hear Jesus if they were completely depraved?
Lots of people want healing and dont submit to lordship.
Lots of Jews wanted a to defeat the Romans believing Jesus to be the one to restore Israel.
Is it so hard to believe people follow movements for selfish reasons? Or to be in with the trend?
Turns out can give you a better example, breaking today. (If true--- two-day rule should apply, especially with his translations).Texaggie7nine said:Well I think what makes the Calvinist view so convenient is that it isn't supposed to changed how anyone acts, it just describes everything as "perfectly as God willed it". So if you pushed for your government to make restrictions or ways to control people, well God willed that.titan said:Any. I am saying that there are even today alot of issues that are fought over ---- by the Calvinist view, if what is done does not matter --- why tie up all that energy? Was simply saying it was another reason it doesn't seem to jibe with how the eartly church saw its role.Texaggie7nine said:
You kind of lost me, as I was replying to Dermdoc. Which governments are you talking about and what legislation?
k2aggie07 said:
So is a regenerated Christian a free moral agent?
Quote:
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 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 dothis 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.
dermdoc said:I always ask those folks why the Early Church were not "fundamentalists". Or at least how it is insisted upon today.Frok said:
Those don't count. Literally everyone is a heretic.
I used to follow a blogger who was a hyper-fundamentalist. For some reason I thought it would be fun to engage him. Bad idea. As ridiculous as his views were he would argue them well and just piss me off.
k2aggie07 said:
You didn't answer the question. It seems like a pretty basic yes or no to me.
