Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect

[LuthAMF]

14 minutes ago, florduh said:

I have encountered several Christians here and elsewhere who are thoughtful, responsive and even learned. They will ask pertinent questions and answer questions with a coherent thought process. I can respectfully disagree with their conclusions, but at least there is a dialog and I can come to understand where they're coming from and why.

 

You have had endless opportunity to make your case, answer a question, put forth a cogent argument. You, sir, are not worth engaging.

The case is made. Every point is ignored or mangled. You want sugar coat?

[LuthAMF]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You should go to sleep.  You live a happier life in your dreams, anyway; I'm sure of it.

K.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

K.

What does potassium have to do with this discussion?  You reject science, remember?

[LuthAMF]

5 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, that was written some 2000 years ago. Unless you are calling those last days, "these last days".

 

Paul also said there would be some who would not see death but would be changed... well they changed alright - they died and rotted.

 

My point stands.

Uh huh. Keep bitching about me not making points. 

[LuthAMF]

58 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Paul also said there would be some who would not see death but would be changed... well they changed alright - they died and rotted.

Please give us book, chapter and verse where Paul says this. 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

Please give us book, chapter and verse where Paul says this. 

 

But I'm delighted to of course! Brother, I am concerned that with your advanced knowledge and revelation of the scriptures that you cannot bring to mind one of the greatest promises (to have never been fulfilled) in the bible.

 

For lo I doth say unto you: (Paul speaking to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

 

⁵¹ Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

⁵² In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

 

As you should well know the term "sleep" here means death. So we shall not all die, but shall be changed. Bear in mind he is writing this to people 2000 years ago.

 

This is also echoed in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 where is says that the dead in Christ will rise and those who are alive will be "caught up in the clouds" (Commonly referred to as the Rapture) Again, bear in mind he is writing to the Thessalonians of the day saying WE which are alive and remain. I.e. they will not taste death, and those who are dead will rise.

 

¹³ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

¹⁴ For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

¹⁵ For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

¹⁶ For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

¹⁷ Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

It will be interesting to see if your apologetics is the same as my Churches for this set of scriptures.

[LuthAMF]

9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Paul also said there would be some who would not see death but would be changed... well they changed alright - they died and rotted.

The phrase you use, "there would be some  who would not see death" brings immediately to mind the words of Christ  in Matt 16:28 "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." 

"...some who would not see death..."

This is not found in the writing of Paul. Of course "but will be changed" brings to mind the Corinthian passage but you mix the two as though they are one and then chide me. This is how you do biblical work.

 

You just called me "Brother"? Excuse me, WHAT?????

 

[LuthAMF]

12 hours ago, disillusioned said:

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes. I had some wonderful conversations with Ironhorse. He actually did his best to answer and never went down the road of reprobate minds or you believe you just won't admit it, or it's a self evident truth (PA)

 

I agree with this. IH was a good guy. We didn't agree most of the time, but I respected him and I got the feeling he respected me. There is a lot to be said for actually taking people seriously,  and being sincere.

I take you seriously. I take you all very seriously as do you yourselves.

"...Ironhorse. He actually did his best to answer and never went down the road of reprobate minds...or it's a self evident truth (PA)"

Why would he NOT? Reprobate minds is definitely a biblical descriptive concept. Why shy away from it? To avoid hurting your feelings?

 "...or it's a self evident truth (PA)"

Also a fundamental biblical truth. Why NOT state it and use it?

 

 

btw,  scripture being self evident is not the equivalent of PA as you assert.It's part and parcel of apologetics period, whether or not one is "presuppositional" in his approach. 

 

 

[LuthAMF]

13 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

he just copied and pasted his church liturgy on the subject.  

When did I copy and paste church liturgy at you?

[LuthAMF]

13 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This clown is simply not capable of thinking for himself.  No wonder he's a christian. 

See, it's this kind of venom spewed at the Christian that undoes ANY complimentary comment as seen above regarding Ironhorse or others. This does not single out me as an individual. This is your indictment upon all Christians. So don't give me this crap that you respect ANY of us as Christians. Some may be "nicer" to you than others thus you can engage in pleasantries, but you all make it very very clear and RNP is simply the more vocal mouthpiece. 

 

But this internal war has raged from the beginning, so we carry on. Just don't act like there's no animosity. It's dripping.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

The phrase you use, "there would be some  who would not see death" brings immediately to mind the words of Christ  in Matt 16:28 "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." 

"...some who would not see death..."

This is not found in the writing of Paul. Of course "but will be changed" brings to mind the Corinthian passage but you mix the two as though they are one and then chide me. This is how you do biblical work.

 

 

Well Christ was clearly full of bullshit then wasn't he because the son of man is still coming.

 

I can't believe that you don't see the tie in between Matt 16:28, 1 Cor 15-51-52, and 1 Thess 4:13-17 - all three passages are essentially referring to people of that day not dying, being changed and meeting the lord in the air. There are other passages that tie into this concept that flows through much of the New Testament. You seem to be caught up with the fact that Paul didn't say the EXACT phrase when I was referring to the concept of people not dying and going to be with the lord. I wasn't even thinking about Jesus words but they do tie into the general concept.

 

What did they teach you at your Church? That was pretty standard doctrine I grew up with.

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

You just called me "Brother"? Excuse me, WHAT?????

 

Obvious humorous use of Christian term is not obvious it seems.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

I take you seriously. I take you all very seriously as do you yourselves.

"...Ironhorse. He actually did his best to answer and never went down the road of reprobate minds...or it's a self evident truth (PA)"

Why would he NOT? Reprobate minds is definitely a biblical descriptive concept. Why shy away from it? To avoid hurting your feelings?

 "...or it's a self evident truth (PA)"

Also a fundamental biblical truth. Why NOT state it and use it?

 

I know they are all biblical concepts, but absolutely pointless when it comes to having a serious discussion. The bible, and certain Christians like to proclaim knowledge of the inner workings of the atheists mind. However such attempts are wrong and futile. I've never had a Christian accurately describe why I don't believe. Usually they go with the tired old "you know god exists but you want to [insert some bullshit phrase]" That's categorically wrong. I don't know God exists so whenever anyone tells me that I know they are full of bullshit. Lots of it. Ironhorse it would seem was wiser than you and understood this. He wasn't interested in shoving his "self evident" doctrine down our throats, he wanted to basically have conversations and defend his beliefs the best he could.

 

If all the Christian is going to do is natter on about how we don't believe because XYZ, well it's conversation over. I'm not interested in whatever unfounded BS you want to proclaim about my inner state of mind, I'm interested in why you believe what you believe and what reasons and evidence you have to back it up.

 

If Christians want to preach about reprobate minds and other BS they can go find themselves a church with people willing to listen. 

 

You saying the bible is self evident truth to us is as stupid and meaningless as me saying that Harry Potter is self evident truth to you. (I assume of course you don't think that Harry Potter is a self evidently true?)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

When did I copy and paste church liturgy at you?

Still more confusion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

See, it's this kind of venom spewed at the Christian that undoes ANY complimentary comment as seen above regarding Ironhorse or others. This does not single out me as an individual. This is your indictment upon all Christians. So don't give me this crap that you respect ANY of us as Christians. Some may be "nicer" to you than others thus you can engage in pleasantries, but you all make it very very clear and RNP is simply the more vocal mouthpiece. 

 

But this internal war has raged from the beginning, so we carry on. Just don't act like there's no animosity. It's dripping.

Your understanding is flawed.

[LuthAMF]

23 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Obvious humorous use of Christian term is not obvious it seems.

Oh yeah, I get it. Which is why I took issue with it. Humorous? Sure. Says traitors.

 

27 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I can't believe that you don't see the tie in between Matt 16:28, 1 Cor 15-51-52, and 1 Thess 4:13-17

There can be a tie in. Just not like you make it.

 

29 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

all three passages are essentially referring to people of that day not dying,

Matthew 16:28 I say unto you there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the son of man come in his kingdom. What do you say? "That Christ was clearly full of BS for the son of man is still coming!" Then you have the gall to ask me "what did they teach you at your church?" Well the fair question is turned right back upon you.  By his "kingdom" is understood the glory of his Ascension and what follows thereof, Ephesians 4:10 or the preaching of the Gospel Mark 9:1. That is the kingdom of which Christ speaks, not years in the future. Obviously you were taught strict Dispensationalism weren't you? 

As for the 1st Corinthians 15 Passage 51 "Behold I show you a secret thing; we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet shall blow and the dead shall be raised up Incorruptible and we shall be changed." But what do you say? "...referring to people of that day not dying changed and meeting the Lord in the air." Excuse me, sir, but v 52 makes it extremely plain: and the dead shall be raised up in corruptible and we shall be changed. There's a Time marker there,  at the last trumpet.

41 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

There are other passages that tie into this concept that flows through much of the New Testament.

Absolutely. Use them properly.

 

42 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

You seem to be caught up with the fact that Paul didn't say the EXACT phrase when I was referring to the concept of people not dying and going to be with the lord.

That is because the EXACT phrase is not used by Paul but by Christ. You mistakenly use it.

 

43 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I wasn't even thinking about Jesus words but they do tie into the general concept.

You should have been more precise then. The bible is precise in attributing the proper quote to the proper person. Why can't you? Christ's words DO INDEED "tie in" to the general concept. THEY"RE THE FOUNDATION FOR IT!!!

 

Mangle and botch. That's how you "handle" scripture.

 

 

[LuthAMF]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Still more confusion.

You're up too early. Even your fuzzy mind is still too fuzzy. Back to sleep.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

You're up too early. Even your fuzzy mind is still too fuzzy. Back to sleep.

The case is already made.  Every point is mangled or ignored.  Do you want sugar coat?

[mwc]

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Matthew 16:28 I say unto you there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the son of man come in his kingdom. What do you say? "That Christ was clearly full of BS for the son of man is still coming!" Then you have the gall to ask me "what did they teach you at your church?" Well the fair question is turned right back upon you.  By his "kingdom" is understood the glory of his Ascension and what follows thereof,

     Hmmm...this doesn't seem quite right.

 

     I mean, this is all part of the passage:

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 

 

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

 

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

     Looking at the last two verses it would seem that there's more to it that just the ascension.  We're talking about coming with angels and other things that you can read for yourself.  There are no angels involved in the ascension in any telling of the story.  The only way angels can be involved is if we count the angels that are (sometimes) reported at the tomb which is not connected with the ascension but the resurrection (unless you're here to tell me that this is now a mistake and they're really ascension angels).

 

     This whole concept is expanded upon later on in Matthew 25:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

     This is the same phrasing.  The son of man coming in his glory with the angels.  Only we're told what will happen at this time.  And it's not the ascension.  It's much different.

 

     And no one standing there was still alive to witness anything like it.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

21 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Oh yeah, I get it. Which is why I took issue with it. Humorous? Sure. Says traitors.

 

Traitors? We are getting hyperbolic.

 

I think you need to chill. Calm down. Taking issue with someone saying "brother" in a humorous way, in which you new it was meant as humor, but getting upset about it anyway is rather childish. Reminds me of some of the people you see screaming on youtube these days about this most minor thing they've decided to become offended over. I'd suggest praying... that helps.

.

.

.

Oh blast there is that humour again. Excuse me while I try and tie it down... come here you little maggot, nah, gahh get back here. AH HA! I have it. No more humor from now on!

 

21 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

There can be a tie in. Just not like you make it.

 

Oh excuse me. I was just teaching you my Church doctrine. I'll let you take up your issues with the pastor ok?

 

21 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Matthew 16:28 I say unto you there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the son of man come in his kingdom. What do you say? "That Christ was clearly full of BS for the son of man is still coming!" Then you have the gall to ask me "what did they teach you at your church?" Well the fair question is turned right back upon you.  By his "kingdom" is understood the glory of his Ascension and what follows thereof, Ephesians 4:10 or the preaching of the Gospel Mark 9:1. That is the kingdom of which Christ speaks, not years in the future. Obviously you were taught strict Dispensationalism weren't you? 

As for the 1st Corinthians 15 Passage 51 "Behold I show you a secret thing; we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet shall blow and the dead shall be raised up Incorruptible and we shall be changed." But what do you say? "...referring to people of that day not dying changed and meeting the Lord in the air." Excuse me, sir, but v 52 makes it extremely plain: and the dead shall be raised up in corruptible and we shall be changed. There's a Time marker there,  at the last trumpet.

Absolutely. Use them properly.

 

Can you show me where in the bible it talks about dispensations... or is this theological apologetic's to cover up the obvious lack of the expected coming of the writers?

 

21 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

That is because the EXACT phrase is not used by Paul but by Christ. You mistakenly use it.

 

I was referring to the concept. The fact I happen to use the exact phrase was coincidental and probably got mixed up in my subconscious as I was thinking about it. You are pissing over semantics at this point.

 

21 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You should have been more precise then. The bible is precise in attributing the proper quote to the proper person. Why can't you? Christ's words DO INDEED "tie in" to the general concept. THEY"RE THE FOUNDATION FOR IT!!!

 

 

You notice when I said Paul said I didn't use quote marks. Why? Because I was referring to a broader concept. 

 

 

21 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Mangle and botch. That's how you "handle" scripture.

 

You gota stop projecting. It's getting tiresome.

[disillusioned]

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

btw,  scripture being self evident is not the equivalent of PA as you assert.It's part and parcel of apologetics period, whether or not one is "presuppositional" in his approach. 

 

 

I'm sorry,  now you are actually showing your own confusion. Its very possible to engage in apologetics without asserting scripture to be self-evident. It's even possible to engage in apologetics without asserting that all scripture is literally true. Your understanding here is clearly flawed.

[LuthAMF]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Quote

That is because the EXACT phrase is not used by Paul but by Christ. You mistakenly use it.

 

I was referring to the concept. The fact I happen to use the exact phrase was coincidental and probably got mixed up in my subconscious as I was thinking about it. You are pissing over semantics at this point.

That's exactly right. When "coincidental and...mixed up in subconscious" become the equivalent of the proper teaching then we end up with the confused garbage you just gave us. And it's not semantics. It's who said what to whom when where and why. 

 

[LuthAMF]

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I'm sorry,  now you are actually showing your own confusion. Its very possible to engage in apologetics without asserting scripture to be self-evident. It's even possible to engage in apologetics without asserting that all scripture is literally true. Your understanding here is clearly flawed.

Which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I actually wrote. I should have added "...part and parcel of Christian apologetics" but i assumed that was understood.

Of course there are "apologists" of every stripe who deny scripture etc. (Like yourself) or promote a competing religion (Like yourself) which still has nothing to do with PA.

 

Does this mean there are no presuppositions? Hardly. Do you contend that man, from birth, is morally and "religiously" (spiritually) neutral?

[disillusioned]

3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I actually wrote. I should have added "...part and parcel of Christian apologetics" but i assumed that was understood.

Of course there are "apologists" of every stripe who deny scripture etc. (Like yourself) or promote a competing religion (Like yourself) which still has nothing to do with PA.

 

I'm sorry,  I was referring to Christian apologists. Or, at least,  to apologists who profess to be Christians. I anticipate that you may assert that they aren't true Christians (TM), but that seems to me simply be a groundless assertion.

 

For the record, I'm not an apologist of any kind. I just think Christianity is silly. I'm not trying to push the idea that it's false. If you like it,  you are welcome to it. All of it. Please,  go ahead and help yourself. Don't feel the need to share it with me; I'm good. 

 

3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Does this mean there are no presuppositions? Hardly. Do you contend that man, from birth, is morally and "religiously" (spiritually) neutral?

 

Well, since you ask, I don't think we have spirits, so I think man is always spiritually neutral. Clearly newborns are religiously neutral. I don't think they can properly be said to have beliefs of any substantive kind. As for mortality,  I think it is non-objective and socially constructed. So yes, newborns are morally neutral on my view. I'm not sure what this has to do with PA, but you asked,  and I answered. See how that works?

[LuthAMF]

32 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

I'm sorry,  I was referring to Christian apologists. Or, at least,  to apologists who profess to be Christians. I anticipate that you may assert that they aren't true Christians (TM), but that seems to me simply be a groundless assertion.

 

For the record, I'm not an apologist of any kind. I just think Christianity is silly. I'm not trying to push the idea that it's false. If you like it,  you are welcome to it. All of it. Please,  go ahead and help yourself. Don't feel the need to share it with me; I'm good. 

 

 

Well, since you ask, I don't think we have spirits, so I think man is always spiritually neutral. Clearly newborns are religiously neutral. I don't think they can properly be said to have beliefs of any substantive kind. As for mortality,  I think it is non-objective and socially constructed. So yes, newborns are morally neutral on my view. I'm not sure what this has to do with PA, but you asked,  and I answered. See how that works?

You stated; I politely answered. So yes, I demonstrate that I "know how it works".

 

So you say "I just think Christianity is silly" and "Well, since you ask, I don't think we have spirits, so I think man is always spiritually neutral."

And you have determined this how?

See, this is the thing. EVERYBODY  runs around "I think this and I think that..." and it's considered impolite and even taboo today to dare question. But if allowed, of course it runs directly into "Then prove me wrong." Which is where we identify standards; Autonomous and subjective or Objective.

[disillusioned]

43 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

You stated; I politely answered. So yes, I demonstrate that I "know how it works".

 

And yet, you still haven't answered my question regarding your apologetics. What is your view?

 

Quote

So you say "I just think Christianity is silly" and "Well, since you ask, I don't think we have spirits, so I think man is always spiritually neutral."

And you have determined this how?

 

I didn't say I'd determined it. I said I think.  But again,  since you ask,  Christianity is silly because it contradicts itself in a myriad of ways. There also isn't just one Christianity, as you know. There are all kinds of flavours, some of which directly contradict each other. There seems to be no way to determine which version is correct. And yet, I'm supposed to base my life on the correct one. This is silly.

 

As for spirits, I've simply never had reason to believe they exist. This is sufficient for me to not think they exist, and to extend this to my assertion that I don't think we have spirits.

 

Quote

See, this is the thing. EVERYBODY  runs around "I think this and I think that..." and it's considered impolite and even taboo today to dare question. But if allowed, of course it runs directly into "Then prove me wrong." Which is where we identify standards; Autonomous and subjective or Objective.

 

I don't think it's generally true that questioning is considered impolite,  but if it is,  who cares? I do see the point about the need for standards. I suppose PA could be seen as an attempt to impose standards,  but it is a stupid way of doing this. It falls into circularity, as has already been shown in this thread. If circular reasoning is allowed then we can get to any conclusion we wish because circular reasoning is allowed.