Jump to content

Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There is a christian doctrine of scripture... which still remains to be proven true.

The thing "proven true" remains your oblivion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 341
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How many gods have to vote "Yea" in order to elect a person?  Will a simple majority suffice?  A 2/3 majority?  Or does it need to be unanimous?

Interesting video. The pastor didn't really like being put on the spot like that. His excuse, or apology if you will, seems to be to shift the attention and claim that everyone in hell will be deservi

Predestination is active while foreknowledge is passive.  The former has god making choices while the latter tries to shift it away from god by his inactivity.        I can see how these are

Posted Images

  • Moderator
6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

What is in plain sight? There is a Christian doctrine of scripture of which you are all oblivious. Yet as former "Christians" you should not be. Josh couldn't articulst it in debate when asked; everyone else avoided it as well.

 

You all say I never presented it either. But, being oblivious....

 

Go look through the past christian members on this site. Look for the patterns. It's always the same thing. We try to get serious answers and what happens is that it dwindles down to claiming that something was already answered, which wasn't. It's a matter of record that it wasn't. Claiming that we just don't get it, only the apologist does. With no evidence presented. When an attempt at presenting evidence is made, it turn's out to be circular reasoning like pointing to the bible to prove the claims of the bible. Or pointing pseudo scientific claims as if they refute established scientific discovery and observation. 

 

You're stuck against the ropes across several threads and the informal debate. You haven't been able to demonstrate the truth of the bible nor the existence of god. You deny presupposition when presupposition is all you or any one else has to go by. I spanked your ass with this reality and you go off on another tangent. You're floundering around. You have nothing solid to stand on. And you've "devolved" into a joke at this point like William. Losing any credibility that you may have once had a shot at establishing with everyone. This really has devolved into mindless ad hom and trolling. We've discussed this problem before and yet it continues on.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

The thing "proven true" remains your oblivion. 

The thing "proven true" remains your opinion.  Nothing more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is an interesting thread. I clearly don't spend enough time in the Lion's Den these days. I applaud all of my fellow apostates for defending the non-faith.

On 8/24/2019 at 11:24 AM, LuthAMF said:

"Don't challenge or question my conclusion." e.g. Gun control, abortion, Sexual Identity, racism, religion, recreational drug use etc etc.

 

Just wanted to point out an amusing irony here. With the exception of abortion I probably agree with this guy on all of the above. I wanted to thank LuthAMF personally for voting for the same adulterous, hedonistic blasphemer that I did (and plan to also support in the future). Can we count on you to make it to the polls in 2020? 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
On 8/23/2019 at 6:18 AM, 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. 

 

a priori
(1) a self-evident truth that does not need to be proved. (2) knowledge that is independent of sensory impression. (3) proceeding by deduction from cause to effect. (4) a presupposition.

 

presupposition
(1) A belief held prior to investigation. (2) An assumption or criterion that precedes examination of a subject that conditions one's interpretation of that subject. Example: A Christian presupposes that miracles occur before he examines the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection. An atheist presupposes that miracles do not occur before he examines the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection.

 

presppositionalism
An approach to apologetics that begins with the a priori claim that all men intuitively know that God exists even before they are presented with evidence, and due to the noetic effects of sin, there is insufficient common ground shared by believers and unbelievers to have a neutral evidence-based discussion of Christianity. Presuppositionalists argue that the apologist must simply assume the existence of the biblical God as the only legitimate ground for all thinking. 

 

 

http://classicalmonotheisticchristianapologetics.com/apologists-know/apologetic-terms/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

 

I lived through 60 years as a Christian believer with no real knowledge of Calvinism or the Presbyterian faith.

 

A few months ago I met a young man by chance who is a member of the PCA.

We spent a little time in discussion on the phone over several weeks as he tried to teach me "the truth".

 

It seems on the face of it that the PCA's belief in pre-destination is in contrast to the typical Protestant church's belief in contemporaneous determination and "free will".

 

I really don't believe there is any difference.

I suspect that almost all Christian believers secretly believe within themselves that they personally were pre-destined to belief and salvation.

 

In my opinion and observation, they almost all believe that they are believers because God recognized their special qualities as human beings and wanted them personally in the "kingdom of God" from the beginning of time (or from the time of their own birth).

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

 

 

That was the best game of Burden Tennis I've seen in a long, long time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Wow!

 

 

That was the best game of Burden Tennis I've seen in a long, long time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

Yeah.  I sometimes miss Luth-ifer and his grandiloquent trolling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yeah.  I sometimes miss Luth-ifer and his grandiloquent trolling.

 

He was quite pissed off with me. Had a pretty fired exchange on the way out the door.

 

But I honestly hope that it rattled the cage in his mind a little bit. Sure, get pissed off. Storm out of here. Curse me up and down. But then try and think about what happened. Think about why you were unable to provide the evidence. Let it all sink in for a while. I guess that since I stopped believing all this BS due to trying to PROVE to an atheist that god does exist, and failing, I feel as though the same realization is there for the taking for anyone else who tries the same. 

 

But here's the catch. I was interested the whole time in "intellectual honesty." And just honesty in general. I honestly thought that there was tons of evidence to prove god's existence. And then I realized that there actually isn't. Upon making the honest realization, I had little choice from then on out. I had to follow the truth where it leads. 

 

The biggest problem this far with Luth-ifer, is his self dishonesty. And intellectual dishonesty. He hates me for holding his feet to the fire about it both publicly and private. But I don't care. I won't back him or people like him down an inch as long as they're wearing an apologetic jersey. They're on a losing team and it's up to them to try and figure out how to either win, or make the move to switching teams.

 

Not unlike playing for the Miami Dolphins, but I digress...........

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I honestly thought that there was tons of evidence to prove god's existence. And then I realized that there actually isn't. Upon making the honest realization, I had little choice from then on out. I had to follow the truth where it leads. 

I took a somewhat opposite approach to evangelism/apologetics when I was a christian.  I knew the evidence was scant; but I presented it to unbelievers with the assumption (faith) that god was powerful enough to reveal himself through it anyway.  Imagine my surprise when few, if any, ever converted.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I took a somewhat opposite approach to evangelism/apologetics when I was a christian.  I knew the evidence was scant; but I presented it to unbelievers with the assumption (faith) that god was powerful enough to reveal himself through it anyway.  Imagine my surprise when few, if any, ever converted.

 

I was so young at the time that I just didn't understand how scant the evidence really is. The church elders and leaders bragged about how much evidence there is, so I just accepted it without question. I wonder if Luth-ifer is more similar to your example. He has to know - he's been spoon fed all of the facts. Before ever coming here. And then facing down all of the facts that went down in our exchanges.

 

It must be that he thinks that god is powerful enough to overcome the seemingly scant evidence situation. I don't know what else he could be thinking. I'm sure he thinks that the end justifies the means, in terms of his intellectual dishonesty. Or that it's all for the greater good in some way. But then again, the same could be said of just about any apologist out there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

It must be that he thinks that god is powerful enough to overcome the seemingly scant evidence situation. I don't know what else he could be thinking. I'm sure he thinks that the end justifies the means, in terms of his intellectual dishonesty. Or that it's all for the greater good in some way. But then again, the same could be said of just about any apologist out there. 

The first few (hundred) times I attempted to share the "good news," I just assumed my prospective convert had a hardened heart, or that it "just wasn't god's time for that particular soul."  After multitudinous experiences with failure, I swallowed the old "planting a seed" rhetoric.  I reasoned that since god was the one what wanted them saved, then he'd have to do the saving himself; and, as long as I was being a good "witness" and doing the best I could, he wouldn't be able to hold me accountable for lost souls (I has absolutely mortified by the thought of having eternal blood on my hands... thanks, mom).

 

Eventually, it occurred to me that maybe the reason I never could get anybody "saved" was because there really aren't very many people who need saving; and the few who do already seem to be believers.  The idea that god had a plan for everybody was already under intense scrutiny; but now I began questioning the very premise of the plan of salvation.   "Saved" from what, exactly?  Well, you know where that road leads...

 

I'm hoping Luth-ifer is somewhere on that road himself.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Who necro'd this thread? Speak up!

 

In line with what TRP is saying, one of our doctrines was that many are called, and few are chosen. Thus active evangelism was actually discouraged because it was believed that God would bring to the church his 'few chosen' and everyone else was cannon fodder. Like all 7 billion of them. 

 

Evidence was never even a consideration. Even comparison with other theologies and doctrines was never discussed. The others were just deceived by the devil, or had gone off unto their own understanding. I think the first time evidence got introduced to the church was when I started pointing out the evidence against Christianity. Then all of a sudden books appeared with evidence arguing for Christianity, and against evolution, and biblical archaeology etc. Which sadly has only reinforced the members beliefs - it kind of like my leaving forced them deeper into their beliefs. 

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

Who necro'd this thread? Speak up!

 

 

That would be me.

Forgive me, I had just stumbled in the door a day or two prior.

 

My experience meeting the young man who is a devoted member of the PCA was only a couple months ago.

My subsequent realization that (in my opinion) most other Protestant denomination members also really believe within themselves in predestination despite their claim otherwise was a powerful revelation for me.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
47 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

That would be me.

Forgive me, I had just stumbled in the door a day or two prior.

 

You are alright - I was just joking.

 

47 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

My experience meeting the young man who is a devoted member of the PCA was only a couple months ago.

My subsequent realization that (in my opinion) most other Protestant denomination members also really believe within themselves in predestination despite their claim otherwise was a powerful revelation for me.

 

Yeah I think there is more support within the bible for predestination than against it:

 

"Many are called, few are chosen"

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

 

And so on. It's surprising then to come across a Christian who doesn't believe in predestination. I mean the whole theology of God creating the universe to save you smacks of predestination. 

 

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

It's surprising then to come across a Christian who doesn't believe in predestination. I mean the whole theology of God creating the universe to save you smacks of predestination. 

 

And lacks in freewill, as we've hashed out here. Contradicts the great commission, as we've exposed. Not surprising. Just more contradictions to add to the ever growing pile. But interesting contradictions all the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 11:45 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

....Deterministic Calvinist's don't escape it. Free will SDA's (or any other free will variety) don't seem to escape it either. And it looks like no one can escape it unless they don't believe that god is omniscient. In not believing that god omniscient, they deny the claims of omniscience which are taken from the bible. That would make them deniers of the bible at least in part. And hang them with being internally inconsistent with the bible.

 

The curve ball being that the bible is internally inconsistent with itself, so bible believers are in actuality predetermined to be internally inconsistent along with the bible, by default.......

 

 

 

Ouch.

You're making my head hurt.

  • Haha 2
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.