Jump to content

Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

YES! There's the answer. 

 

A rare moment of lucidity.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 620
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I take it that "eat it" is Christianese for "fuck you."

I prayed to Jesus for 10 years.                                                                         William prays to Jesus now and I guess for quite a while now.  Jesus gave me a false pastor

Luth:  jesus is real   Ex-c chorus:  prove it   Luth:  I don't have to.  The bible already proved it.   Ex-c chorus:  so prove the bible is true.   Luth:  I don

Posted Images

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

If you're strong in the faith you dont visit ex-Christian websites. You're too busy praising God and doing all that good stuff for your community.

You are way late to that party. That was two months ago. Sorry they didnt send you the invite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

@LuthAMF I've been trying to access the Westminister confession of faith however they want me to pay for it. Not likely! Do u have a link to an online source? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

@LuthAMF I've been trying to access the Westminister confession of faith however they want me to pay for it. Not likely! Do u have a link to an online source? 

     Try here.

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Giving an honest answer, how many here were exposed to the Westminster COF in church?

     Nope.  Well, I'll change that to a maybe when we were studying Calvinism, but I'm only saying that because the document is long and I've only scanned it.  Right around chapter 10 it seems to go into predestination so I'm going to say it wasn't something I would have been taught.  However, the rest of the sections (again, sans those bits) all seem like they would have been included but I really need to give it a good read to know for certain.

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
38 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Giving an honest answer, how many here were exposed to the Westminster COF in church?

 

My church wasn't. We eschewed formalised religion as such prevented God revealing himself to his people in each age.

 

Something like the Westminster COF was considered a formalised creed that had nothing to do with being lead by the spirit of God, or whether you were saved.

 

You see Luth, had you come to me when I was a Christian and started talking about the Westminister COF I would have told you that you were a dried formal 'Christian' dead at the roots, and God would spue you out of his mouth.

 

The question then would be - which one of us would have been True Christians? This leads back to who gets to say who is a Christian.

 

Now certainly we believed many of the things in the creed - in fact you find much commonality among all the Christian sects. I'm still not sure how you determine if one is a Christian - does one have to told to every single point in the creed to be a Christian?

 

The COF linked (Thanks) States God created the earth and heavens in 6 days per Genesis. I assume they are confirming a literal translation?

 

Where would this leave Christian apologists such as Dr William Lane Craig who rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, midniterider said:

the fact that a True Believer could leave the faith. 

 

Do you think that believing something is the equivalent of having faith?

5 hours ago, LuthAMF said:
Quote

Apparently being a True Christian means being dishonest to ones self and dishonest to other people when flaws in the bible and church culture appear. Being a True Christian means creating whatever nonsense in your head to plug the holes in logic and reason. 

 

YES! There's the answer. 

 

What a load of BS, it might be true that is what those who consider themselves to be true christians believe, but it sure indicates that they are those who maketh and loveth lies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
21 minutes ago, Justus said:

What a load of BS,

 

Ha, you could be describing all religions right there! :D 

.

.

… I'll find my way to the door :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Justus said:

 

Do you think that believing something is the equivalent of having faith?

 

What does faith matter? 

 

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

 

But whip up some word salad about faith not equaling belief or some such nonsense if you like. 

 

21 minutes ago, Justus said:

 

What a load of BS, it might be true that is what those who consider themselves to be true christians believe, but it sure indicates that they are those who maketh and loveth lies. 

 

I dont consider myself to have been a True Christian, just a Christian. True Christians is a special pleading fallacy and what Christians on the forum are using to try to discredit people who believed in Christ just like they did....but then stopped. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, midniterider said:

What does faith matter? 

 

4 minutes ago, midniterider said:

But whip up some word salad about faith not equaling belief or some such nonsense if you like

Before the first question can even be answered you've already called it word salad nonsense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LuthAMF said:

 

Before the first question can even be answered you've already called it word salad nonsense.

 

 

I let John 3:16 be my answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

It's funny how many christians come here telling us that if we had just been exposed to the right version of christianity, we'd still be christians; yet none of them are willing to straight up tell us what the right version of christianity is.  Maybe we could all get saved again, if only we could hear the really real Real Truth. 

 

Personally, if true christianity can't be found in the bible alone, then I have no need of any Confessions (or hermeneutics or exegesis, for that matter).  What I'd need would be a god who could say exactly what he meant.  So, we're still on square 1.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
27 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I let John 3:16 be my answer. 

 

*Straight face*

 

You are not interpreting that passage correctly.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It's funny how many christians come here telling us that if we had just been exposed to the right version of christianity, we'd still be christians; yet none of them are willing to straight up tell us what the right version of christianity is.  Maybe we could all get saved again, if only we could hear the really real Real Truth. 

 

Personally, if true christianity can't be found in the bible alone, then I have no need of any Confessions (or hermeneutics or exegesis, for that matter).  What I'd need would be a god who could say exactly what he meant.  So, we're still on square 1.

 

Confessions 'aren't' the Word. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It's funny how many christians come here telling us that if we had just been exposed to the right version of christianity, we'd still be christians; yet none of them are willing to straight up tell us what the right version of christianity is.  Maybe we could all get saved again, if only we could hear the really real Real Truth. 

 

Personally, if true christianity can't be found in the bible alone, then I have no need of any Confessions (or hermeneutics or exegesis, for that matter).  What I'd need would be a god who could say exactly what he meant.  So, we're still on square 1.

"It's funny how many..."

Maybe but don't include me in that group. I'm not telling you that.  Never have.

 

But your square one is bogus as a cheese moon. I dont say this strictly to antagonize or insult (Weve done enough of that) but you say absolutely stupid things about the thing you supposedly once understood. 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Griffin said:

 

...and this is how wars start, but maybe I'm too blinded by Satan to see the good news of the holy spirit that motivates otherwise decent people into killing for god and country. I also fail to see why an omnipotent god would need people apologizing and sticking up for him. Let the god/man defend himself.

Translation:

Oooby gloob. Jooba oob gloob. Ooma jooby jooby gloob. And furthermore,  mumba umba jummy joo joo. 

 

Now, since you so so eloquently uttered that garbled nonsense, I suppose you too were once Christian?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

@LuthAMF I've been trying to access the Westminister confession of faith however they want me to pay for it. Not likely! Do u have a link to an online source? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith

 

Quote

Contents[edit]

 

The confession is a systematic exposition of Calvinist orthodoxy (which neo-orthodox scholars refer to as "scholastic Calvinism"), influenced by Puritan and covenant theology.[2] It includes doctrines common to most of Christendom such as the Trinity and Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection, and it contains doctrines specific to Protestantism such as sola scriptura and sola fide. Its more controversial features include the covenant of works with Adam, the Puritan doctrine that assurance of salvation is not a necessary consequence of faith, a minimalist conception of worship, and a strict sabbatarianism.[citation needed]

It states that the Pope is the Antichrist, which was a very common belief in seventeenth-century England.[3] It also stated that the Roman Catholic mass is a form of idolatry, that the civil magistrates have divine authority to punish heresy, and rules out marriage with non-Christians.

 

How many times now have I asked if you're a Calvinist, @LuthAMF

 

Why all the dodging and playing games? Are you a member of the calvinist elite from christforums, teamed up with brother William? What's the deal? 

 

 

Quote

Chapter 3 affirms the Reformed doctrine of predestination: that God foreordained who would be among the elect (and therefore saved), while he passed by those who would be damned for their sins. The confession states that from eternity God did "freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". By God's decree, "some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."[6]

 

 

And chapter 4 concerns specifically the content of our current debate: 

 

 

Quote

Chapter 4 recounts the

 Genesis creation narrative and affirms that human beings were created in the image of God with immortal souls, having fellowship with God and dominion over other creatures.[7] Chapter 6 recounts the Fall of Man whereby humans committed original sin and became subject to total depravity. According to the confession, the consequence of the fall and sin is that sinners are guilty before God, under divine wrath and the curse of the law, and, ultimately, subject to spiritual death.[8] The confession states that the fall and all other sins were foreordained by divine providence; however, the confession also teaches that sin "proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God". God cannot be the author of sin because he is entirely holy and righteous.[9]

 

 

You both come into the debate, William backs out early on. You stay in. Would you like to "confess" your relationship with christforums for sake of clarity? I think inquiring minds would like to know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

And chapter 4 concerns specifically the content of our current debate: 

 

     Chapter 4.  Yep.  It's pretty strong.  Good luck countering this powerhouse:

Quote

 


1. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,a for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,b in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.c

a. Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4; John 1:2-3; Heb 1:2. • b. Psa 33:5-6; 104:24; Jer 10:12; Rom 1:20. • c. Gen 1 throughout; Acts 17:24; Col 1:16; Heb 11:3.

2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female,a with reasonable and immortal souls,b endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image,c having the law of God written in their hearts,d and power to fulfil it;e and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.f (23) Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;g which while they kept they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.h

a. Gen 1:27. • b. Gen 2:7 with Eccl 12:7 and Mat 10:28 and Luke 23:43. • c. Gen 1:26; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. • d. Rom 2:14-15. • e. Eccl 7:29. • f. Gen 3:6; Eccl 7:29. •g. Gen 2:17; 3:8-11, 23. • h. Gen 1:26, 28.
 

 

     It's like word for word from the minds of the authors of Genesis...oops, the author of Genesis who was Moses (who had in mind a smattering of unknown other writings).  Check and mate, pal.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Chapter 4.  Yep.  It's pretty strong.  Good luck countering this powerhouse:

 

 

     It's like word for word from the minds of the authors of Genesis...oops, the author of Genesis who was Moses.  Check and mate, pal.

 

          mwc

 

 

In the space of six days. What was all that fluff in the debate about old earth creation? And the mixed up business about what a day means and our having to point out the "evenings and mornings" issue when his guide to "real christianity," says in chapter four that god created the world in the space of six days (evenings and mornings like we pointed out)? The author wrote it, his own belief system based on these so-called "confessions" says it, and yet Luth is off chasing OEC apologist's as a way of trying to bring in support for inerrancy? 

 

This is all over the place. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Why all the dodging and playing games?

Will you knock it off with that crap already.

7 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

How many times now have I asked if you're a Calvinist, @LuthAMF

I dont know. Have you asked point blank? I sincerely apologize for missing it if you have but after all this time you still accuse me of dodging and playing games. Games are over. I have no reason to dodge. 

So ok...I believe a most consistent Christianity is Reformed. "Calvinist" bears an unfair connotation. 

 

But still, concise Creeds of Christianity are necessary. What is wrong with distilling the revealed doctrines of scripture down to organized points?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Griffin said:

 

...and this is how wars start, but maybe I'm too blinded by Satan to see the good news of the holy spirit that motivates otherwise decent people into killing for god and country. I also fail to see why an omnipotent god would need people apologizing and sticking up for him. Let the god/man defend himself.

 

God doesn't defend himself because: excuses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

and yet Luth is off chasing OEC apologist's as a way of trying to bring in support for inerrancy? 

 

This is all over the place. 

I am not OEC!!!! 

How many times must I say that?

You've totally ignored the use of Dr. Archer. Whatever.

 

All over the place? That's what I said would happen right from the start.

11 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

And the mixed up business about what a day means

YOUR mixed up business. I've made it clear I am a literal six day creationist.

 

But why are we arguing out here? I debate at home with resources. I chit chat and BANTER "out here". Although since the WCOF came into play,  it could be useful there too. Are you telling me I should have opened with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.