First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Pre-Destination
Member
2697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / at the computer
Offline
Posted 6/24/08
YouAreDumb still has his touch, causing people to argue with him. Wow, this stuff that Jmartinez83 is so far beyond me that I don't even know anymore. I only have a brief knowledge of Calvinism and Armineunism (I don't even know how to spell it right). I can't help here.
Moderator
5694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/24/08
I agree...I'm deeply rooted in the word of God but I've never learned much about Christian doctrine and I've never been to Bible School...heck I just started college...I'm not sure if I'll be much help
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/24/08

jmartinez83 wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:

(Last response to the ignorance of YouAreDumb). God does not choose arbitrarily.
Illogical given that all men are totally depraved. If all men are equally unworthy any choice among them must be arbitrary in nature. TULIP you know. If you do not hold to this doctrine then we are discussing different theological systems.



. Second, I said Greg Bahnsen, not W.L. Craig. I don't accept Craig's Classical approach to apologetics, albeit I like some of the stuff he writes concerning philosophy and whatnot. The fact that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology proves to me that you see no connection with Covenant Theology and predestination. Read more. It will help your ignorance on the subject.


No understanding? Bah I have read several books on the subject and understand it fine. Your statement above leads me to question your ability to take theological theories to their logical conclusion.


Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. TULIP is not Calvinism per se. Maybe some history could straighten you out. During the 17th (1610) century a man who is dubbed Jacob Arminius had taught a doctrine near the Netherlands which caused his followers to "remonstrate", hence the Remonstrants, against the churches that had taught Calvinism as a system of thought. They, the Remonstrants, chose themselves five things of which they thought the churches of the Netherlands were wrong, with the exception of 26 delegates who came from different provinces (8 to be exact). The counsel didn't officially propound this until 1618-19. As a preamble, though not explicitly stated, it stated, "[A] judgment, in which both the true view, agreeing with God's Word, concerning the aforesaid five points of doctrine is explained, and the false view, disagreeing with God's Word, is rejected."[1]
Yes, it is my understanding that the 5 points were things with which they disagreed and most of those called themselves Calvinist held to.





First, total or radical depravity...then on and on goes the argument. This was later to be known as the Canons of Dordrecht. So to say TULIP is Calvinism is radically wrong. Does TULIP some knowledge of Calvinism? Sure, it contains Calvinism but is not the system of Calvinism.

That is patently false. Nearly 100% of modern Calvinist hold to TULIP. Calvinism is not just something created per say by John Calvin. Most of those hold to the label Calvinist hold John Jewel, Cranmer etc is equalo regard to Calvin himself. You are seeking yo distort the issue regardless, as you have not said if you hold to TULIP. Let us forget the historical questions. I wish to know what your stance on TULIP is, and if you hold yo TULIP how election is not arbitrary in nature. You claimed it was not so support your assertion or withdraw it. End.





A Brief Outline of Covenant Theology and Predestination
Essentially, there are three covenants, which I stated earlier:
C of Redemption
C of Works
C of Grace

All of each covenant is found throughout the Bible. The very act of covenant presupposes a good God, for God did not have to make covenant with man since he [Adam] broke the Adamic covenant. It was by sheer grace that God made other covenants to restore this relationship. Hence, God provided more than enough proof to man why and how he [man] ought to act in the world.[2] Why covenant? I believe, as well as other theologians like John Frame, Bahnsen, and others who follow the Reformed model for theology, that God made covenant in order to communicate with man. That in itself was graceful. So then, here we see God's covenant dealing with Moses (the Mosaic covenant) as an act of grace (covenant of grace). And what was the foundation for choosing this people? God's Decree! Aha! There's predestination! But we have to be careful with theological terms since we have to distinguish between Election, Decree, Predestination, Reprobation, etc. For instance, F. Turretin, in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, writes that the cause of God's decree was not Christ, and he's right. The cause is God's decree, not the action of sending Christ down, since Christ was too elect to suffer for the sins of his people (which is also under the heading of covenant of redemption, which also proves that this covenant is not arbitrary).

It does not prove this. That is a non sequitur. It is god who changes the heart of a man to save him. If you agree with that statement his shimy sallying is useless. You must address why some people where chosen and not others-clearly god could have saved everyone of he desired, since he himself is the cause of salvation. I wish to know how you think god choose who to elect. Answer that and we will go from there.




I'm not going to even bother with this post. It is grossly misinformed as to the topic of Reformed Theology and church history. In order to understand the Reformed theology of Calvin, it follows--as you are well bound to say--that it is important to look at the historical data. So no, we won't disregard history just because of your whim. Why should I obey your whim over against the desire to inform the people of this forum? I am giving them the Reformed response to predestination, not what the Remonstrants complained about. Yes I agree with TULIP because it CONTAINS Calvinism. But I still dare say that it is NOT the SYSTEM of Calvinism per se . The system is Covenant Theology with a Reformed epistemology, a doctrine of Lordship[1], and I believe that the addendum of apologetics (making Presuppositional apologetics the official method) should be added; but then again, that it only my opinion.

[1] See John M. Frame, "A Series of Lordship." I personally love this work. It contains most of what he learned from Dr. Cornelius Van Til and some other theologians. I think his credentials are more than able to posit any and all views concerning theology. He was at Westminster Theological Seminary when Dr. Gordon Clark and Dr. John Murray lectured there. Dr. Frame was an alumnus of Princeton (A.B.) and Westminster Theological Seminaries (B.D.) and Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil.). He also got his D.D. at Belhaven College. He is professor of Systematic Theology and philosophy currently at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando.


Assertions about my ignorance have no basis, but that in unimportant for the moment. I shall not argue with you further on this subject, though I note that despite all your posturing you have failed to show how election is an unarbitrary process. Good day.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/25/08
well the foundation of predestination is the gospel, only through reading God's word do we come up with the subject in the first place.

it's hard to figure out if youaredumb is honestly interested or if he is playing devils advocate, only up until recently did it seem like he was making a decent arguement, only recently did he stop attacks on others and focus on the topic, and his points have never been anything other than biast.

But Predestination would be meaningless as would the covenant if we all didn't fully agree that Christ shed His blood for us. Let us not lose sight of the foundation of being a Christian, which makes the idea all the more sweeter in my opinion.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/25/08
Hey guys, I'm close to finished with my paper. I will clarify most of what I've been talking about in it. I will also provide a critique of YouAreDumb (and I will begin to abbreviate his screen name as YAD since it is easier) and an affirmation of a teleological proof that God's choice is specific and purposeful. But before I post it, I want to clarify what I mean here.

Teleological Proofs
When someone uses the term teleological he or she means that there is design or purpose. Teleos comes from the Greek to mean "design" or "purpose." When Youaredumb says that God's choice is based on nothing more than an arbitrary fashion, he is saying that God merely plays the lottery in heaven, plucking names from His "wheel-of-fortune," if you will. Obviously the Christian approach has to do away with ambiguity in God. The results, if we didn't, would be catastrophic. If God is arbitrary in his choices of not only individuals but also of events, nature, reality, etc... then we can't have a moral, epistemic (in other words, we can't have knowledge of anything), or metaphysical basis (we can't experience the world but have merely an illusory experience since it is indefinable and always in flux [always changing], i.e., semper mutatus ). I hope this clarifies some of the terms that I will be using and ideas that have been discussed here so far.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/25/08
haha, You know I knew the context in which you spoke, but I even found this to be useful. Now I don't have to ask you after by what you meant lol. But i liked especially your "wheel-of-fortune" analogy. very modern, yet, thats what it means entirely.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/26/08
There's a different method in which I am going to post the following installments, for the sake of ease. I'm going to post these in parts, due to the amount of work and content. The first of my installments is going to be on the unity and diversity of the covenants. The reason for this is due to the God who utilized the idea of covenant. How it relates to predestination is this: God decided to use covenants to coordinate his relationship to man in history (and I will show that the idea continues even in the NT). He did that by choosing Israel as the instrument for his direct plan (via the Scriptures). I am also advocating that Israel (the notion not the people) wasn't based on race, but on the spiritual aspect of God's covenant (that is, that God's plan was based on the idea of promise, not on being a Jew. Paul argues this in Romans 9-11[1] and Galatians). So then, the idea of covenant is at the very center of predestination in His divine choosing. I will later, after posting my first installment, show where I am going to move from there, and I will give you (the forum) my reasons why.

[1] Piper, J. The Justification of God
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/27/08

cryolyger wrote:

well the foundation of predestination is the gospel, only through reading God's word do we come up with the subject in the first place.

it's hard to figure out if youaredumb is honestly interested or if he is playing devils advocate, only up until recently did it seem like he was making a decent arguement, only recently did he stop attacks on others and focus on the topic, and his points have never been anything other than biast.

But Predestination would be meaningless as would the covenant if we all didn't fully agree that Christ shed His blood for us. Let us not lose sight of the foundation of being a Christian, which makes the idea all the more sweeter in my opinion.


I can't believe I didn't see this one. Actually, the foundation of Predestination is based on God's decree which is before the gospel. The gospel is concerned with Christ. Since Turretin shows in his Institutes that Christ is not the cause of the decree, then it follows that predestination is not based on the gospel since Christ is not the cause. Turretin also shows that Christ himself was chosen to suffer, thus making Christ - orderly speaking - after the decree.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/27/08
haha, my bad? by gospel I had a poor reference to the bible as a whole, although I am still wrong for thats not even the right term I had in mind. You ever post something and then were like hmm. that don't look right? well this happened a little late lol.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/28/08

cryolyger wrote:

haha, my bad? by gospel I had a poor reference to the bible as a whole, although I am still wrong for thats not even the right term I had in mind. You ever post something and then were like hmm. that don't look right? well this happened a little late lol.


Yeah it's cool. I get that sometimes.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.