Featured Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

No they don't.

And there were three options.

The middle one may be the one you missed.

It was: Arminians who either cannot or will not follow their doctrines to their logical necessary ends.

That's where most people fall.

These a re people who want to have an all knowing God while at the same time having a God who did not preordain everything.

They don't care that the two ideas are TOTALLY contradictory to each other. They just want what they want and what they want is a convenient belief system. It does not have to be consistent- just convenient.

 

That is pretty sad if true.

 

Negative points for saying "you can't handle the truth" but not going into a Jack Nicholson diatribe.

 

The above was my on topic post addressing the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. Now Greektim said he became a Calvinist through personal influences and study of scripture. But does he present his view of Calvinist Predestination? Nope. Rather he pontificates about how much he knows and how little others know about an off topic field.

 

How about you quote my post that actually address the OP? You have the gumption to do that??? You probably didn't even read it. It was back on page 1 at the beginning.

I didn't pontificate. I think you should look up the meaning of that word. I was referring to another thread, and you know which thread that is. Also, I didn't say anything about how much I know. Only that I know something that you have admitted you don't... namely Greek. I never talked about how little others know about anything other than what you have admitted to me! I certainly did not use that in a derogatory manner to make myself superior. Only that I have given you and others deep exegesis through Greek grammar and syntax, disproving your assertation that Calvies don't do that. And here you were doing so good being kind in other threads.

This is also not the thread to "present [my] view of Calvinistic Predestination." I don't want to detract from the OP. Forgive my altruism. Better yet, how about you try a bit yourself?

 

Folks simply read Greetkim's pontification and judge for yourselves.

BTW, the doctrine that arose in the 4th century is the Calvinist view that God chose foreseen individuals unconditionally for salvation before the foundation of the world.

And if you go back and read post #2, it does not address via the study of scripture the doctrine of Calvinist Predestination, it tries to justify its late development by saying the early church was working on other matters. LOL

 

Wow... really? Is that how you debate? You level the same accusation back to the person? "Nuh uh... you're the meanie." No words.


I lied


I think your "lol" speaks volumes. The issues of the early church are for you a laughing matter. Quite sad really.

Sorry, but predestination was not high up on the doctrine list. And the writings we have are not theologies but apologies or defenses of Christian doctrines from those outside. That is not laughable. That is reality. The reason predestination isn't an issue is b/c it was not being attacked. And so my post does address the issue. If you look at the title of the thread, it is whether we should put stock into a new doctrine. And so I address the stock issue. Not the predestination issue. So the real "lol" issue is that you can't handle when someone answers the question of the title.

I recommend some maturity. And calling the "folks" to bear witness is fine with me. It is obvious what you are doing. I am good w/ calling on the testimony of others, assuming they can put theological bias aside.

 

Yes...I remember you did try ....and he rejected it:thumbs::thumbs:

That is why i say he is unteachable at this point:thumbsup:

 

More personal attacks and no addressing that Calvinist Predestination doctrine was invented in the 4th century. To answer the OP, yes it gives me pause.

If exhaustive determinism is true, then God is the author of sin. The early church leaders wrote against this idea, stating we are responsible for our choice to seek God or go another way.

 

There was no personal attacks. Just a recommendation to maturity. And if you can't see how that address the issue of predestination being mentioned til the 4th century, then take off your "I hate calvinism" goggles and try to read a second. I am going off of the extant literature we have. We have a bunch of guys defending the faith from accusations outside the church. Predestination is never mentioned against Christianity. Therefore it is not going to be mentioned by the apologists. What is so hard to understand about that? You think Christians on the run for their lives have time to write about this stuff? Sheesh!

 

I said the early church leaders wrote again the doctrine and you say they did not have the motivation? You are not basing your view on the extant literature because you can find where we make free will choices.

The whole premise the early church was not concerned with corruption from within is bogus.

BTW I see where you put "I hate Calvinism" in your post. Your effort was to disqualify my observations as driven by hate rather than reason. This kind of argument is a personal attack.

If exhaustive determinism is true, then God is the author of sin. My view, based on bible study, is that exhaustive determinism is false, because scripture teaches things happen by chance, or autonomous choice, and therefore God is not the author of sin. My motivation is love of the Truth.

 

Your whole argument is pathetic. Obviously, if language says God has dozens of eyeballs, that is figurative language. But there is absolutely no reason not to interpret 2 Chronicles 32:31 literally except that it disagrees with your concept of God. Yet you and others never show scripture to support your view. I on the the other hand repeatedly show numerous scriptures to support my view, not just one as you falsely claim. I have probably showed at least half a dozen verses all showing God learning in this thread alone.

2 Chr 32:31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.

Simply ridiculing a person because they do not conform to your view (or the view of the majority of Christians for that matter) is not an argument. The proof is what the scriptures say, and numerous scriptures show God learning.

 

I wouldn't care if everybody here at BB disagrees with me, I can read, and probably dozens of verses show God learning. I have posted many in this thread.

God's word is not decided by popular vote.

 

Last time... you can't get it here, then I give up on you.

The early church writings that we have, and I'm talking late first through third centuries, are not theologies. They are apologetic defenses of doctrines that the world was attacking. Things like the Trinity and deity of Jesus was much discussed and debated b/c the Jews and Gentiles had a hard time w/ that doctrine and sought to use it against the validity of Christianity. Predestination was never an issue raised for, against, or at all of the early church. Therefore, it would not be mentioned. It is only after Christianity was legalized and the church could start to develop itself that the issue is raised within the church itself.

The premise that the early church was not concerned w/ corruption is a misunderstanding. The early church made sure that those seemingly from within, for instance gnosticism & arianism, was rooted out. That is because those views are not Christian in the slightest. So that was not the early church concerning itself with doctrine but heresy within the church.

In fact, according to your logic, I could press you and ask why the early church didn't denounce such views of Calvinism or determinism in the early church? If you say, "Because the early church didn't believe it." Then I would simply retort that there is no evidence to substantiate that either way. And that is because there is no writing on the issue. And that is my entire point!!!

Lastly, this is an argument from silence. "The early church is silent on this, and so it is wrong." That is faulty reasoning. Church history can corroborate doctrine, and only in a small way since not much was developed in the early years of the church. Church history cannot determine the validity of doctrinal correctness. It can only help to bolster your conclusions.

 

But it was mentioned, in that free will was repeatedly confirmed over and over again by the early church fathers. This absolutely argues against predestination.

You can't get around it, nearly all of the early church fathers were Arminians, they ALL believed in free will.

 

A prominent non-Calvinist here, Webdog, made this observation on 3/8/2012:"Why do you bring up Calvinists as a pejorative every chance you get? Your hatred toward them is becoming something of a legend (which is what you appear to be in your own mind)."

 

Maybe I missed it, but did you offer some quotes and sources? That would be helpful.

 

Hi Rippon, all you seem to do is attack me personally. I cannot believe you have actually searched the postings for negative posts about me. If you have nothing to say on the topic, why post.

 

Please do, as your premise is fiction. As I said, we have the early church writings, and they address that we make choices so we are responsible for our own sins.

It is true the early church fathers did not specifically address the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination, as that was invented later.

The reason why the early church did not denounce Calvinism is it had not been invented. However, exhaustive determinism was kicked around and many early church fathers address that mistaken view.

This quote addresses the fallacy of exhaustive determinism.

 

Sure,

See next post