• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Luke2427

Active Member
No, they are not the only two options. I have been labeled both in debates. Most folks fall somewhere in between the two.

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.
 

Greektim

Well-Known Member
I don't have the ability to kill a thread. A thread is usually closed when one of you Calvinists goes crying like a baby to a moderator. They are usually quite happy to accomodate you. You guys can't handle truth.
Negative points for saying "you can't handle the truth" but not going into a Jack Nicholson diatribe.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How much stock should we put in the fiction that we were chosen unconditionally as foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world? None.

God declares from the beginning what will occur. God makes prophecy. But He does so not by knowing the future (which He may know), but by causing what He said would occur to occur. Totally different idea. So God declares something will happen, then He causes what was declared to happen. He can predestine the "son-placing" which is our promised resurrection, and then make that "son-placing" occur when Christ returns.

So the issue is not that "predestination" was not known before the 4th century, but only that the Calvinist fictional doctrine of predestination was not known before the 4th century.

And this leaves aside the Calvinist fictional doctrine of exhaustive determinism.

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.

Greektim said:
PS... I'm calling bull crap on the "To [sic] bad this deep study of scripture [sic] can never be presented..." statement. I have presented deeper grammatical and syntactical exegesis than any post I have seen from you. I know you don't know Greek, but I do. So to say that deep study isn't happening is either ignorance or arrogance (which is ironic since that was the accusation you leveled just after the quoted statement). Then again, I don't know that our definitions of "deep study of Scripture" is going to match. But whatever...
 

Greektim

Well-Known Member
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?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Greektim

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I tried on his idea that God can fail and has failed. Sometimes you have to shake the dust off those sandals.

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

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

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Greektim

Well-Known Member
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!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
It's not literal Winamn- no more than when the Bible says that Jesus has dozens of eye balls all over his body or that God has wings and a hundred other non-literal passages speaking of God.

I DO deal with the passages. The problem is that you do NOT DEAL with them. You just quote them. The LAST thing you ever do is DEAL with them. To DEAL with them means to compare them with other passages. It means to avoid like the plague the act of trying to prove your point by proof texting verses by themselves and NOT DEALINGwith other verses that speak on the same subject.

We ARE dealing with the passages. You are just quoting them and, like a petulant child, saying, "SEE THERE!! I'M RIGHT!! I'M RIGHT!!"

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

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

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

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.
 

Greektim

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
Greektim said:
Predestination was never an issue raised for, against, or at all of the early church. Therefore, it would not be mentioned.

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.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
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)."
 

Greektim

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

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Last time... you can't get it here, then I give up on you.

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.

Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.
This quote addresses the fallacy of exhaustive determinism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

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

Sure,

Clement of Rome (AD30-100)
"On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture. For Lot’s wife, who went forth with him, being of a different mind from himself and not continuing in agreement with him [as to the command which had been given them], was made an example of, so as to be a pillar of salt unto this day. This was done that all might know that those who are of a double mind, and who distrust the power of God, bring down judgment on themselves? and become a sign to all succeeding generations." (Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians, XI)

Ignatius (AD30-107)
"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life. For I remark, that two different characters are found among men — the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us." (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, V)

Barnabas (AD100)
"The Lord will judge the world without respect of persons. Each will receive as he has done: if he is righteous, his righteousness will precede him; if he is wicked, the reward of wickedness is before him. Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord. And all the more attend to this, my brethren, when ye reflect and behold, that after so great signs and wonders were wrought in Israel, they were thus [at length] abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found [fulfilling that saying], as it is written, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” (Epistle of Barnabas, IV)

Justin Martyr (AD 110-165)
"But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made." (Justin, First Apology, XLIII)

"For so we say that there will be the conflagration, but not as the Stoics, according to their doctrine of all things being changed into one another, which seems most degrading. But neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer, but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sins; and that it is by the influence of the wicked demons that earnest men, such as Socrates and the like, suffer persecution and are in bonds, while Sardanapalus, Epicurus, and the like, seem to be blessed in abundance and glory. The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. and this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both (virtue and vice). And this also is shown by those men everywhere who have made laws and philosophized according to right reason, by their prescribing to do some things and refrain from others. Even the Stoic philosophers, in their doctrine of morals, steadily honour the same things, so that it is evident that they are not very felicitious in what they say about principles and incorporeal things. For if they say that human actions come to pass by fate, they will maintain either that God is nothing else than the things which are ever turning, and altering, and dissolving into the same things, and will appear to have had a comprehension only of things that are destructable, and to have looked on God Himself as emerging both in part and in whole in every wickedness; or that neither vice or virtue is anything; which is contrary to every sound idea, reason, and sense." (Justin Second Apology, VII)

"Could not God have cut off in the beginning the serpent, so that he exist not, rather than have said, ‘And I will put enmity between him and the woman, and between his seed and her seed?’ Could He not have at once created a multitude of men? But yet, since He knew that it would be good, He created both angels and men free to do that which is righteous, and He appointed periods of time during which He knew it would be good for them to have the exercise of free-will; and because He likewise knew it would be good, He made general and particular judgments; each one’s freedom of will, however, being guarded." (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 102)

"I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin;’ that is, having repented of his sins, that he may receive remission of them from God; and not as you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say, that even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them." (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 141)

"Here, then, is a proof of virtue, and of a mind loving prudence, to recur to the communion of the unity, and to attach one’s self to prudence for salvation, and make choice of the better things according to the free-will placed in man; and not to think that those who are possessed of human passions are lords of all, when they shall not appear to have even equal power with men." (Justin, On the Sole Government of God, VI)

See next post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top