Predestination, John Calvin

[Strike For The South]

Does anyone here belivie in it?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things

[Centurion1]

no im a heathen catholic.

predestination just sounds stupid and depressing to me.

[Major Robert Dump]

I've known a few Calvinists. Apparently they were predestined to smoke lots of pot and play D&D with my ex-wife, "D&D" being a clever cover story for sexual relations. That or maybe they really did play D&D and then had sex dressed as orks and yeti.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does anyone here belivie in it?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things

It's pretty simple really. The basic argument goes like this:

1. God is all knowing, all seeing.

2. Ergo, God knows what will happen in the future.

3. Ergo, the future is fixed.

4. Ergo, it has already been decided whether or not I go to Hell.

The other part of the argument goes like this:

1. When Man was first created he had free will.

2. Sin has so corrupted Man's understanding of the world he is chained and cannot choose freely.

3. God can release you from Sin though Christ.

4. It is already decided who will be released from Sin (see above).

5. Anyone released from Sin would obviously choose God, because any other choice would be inconcievable.

It all swings on the idea that God has foreknowledge, and therefore the future is inherrently fixed.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's pretty simple really. The basic argument goes like this:

1. God is all knowing, all seeing.

2. Ergo, God knows what will happen in the future.

3. Ergo, the future is fixed.


It all swings on the idea that God has foreknowledge, and therefore the future is inherrently fixed.

That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.

Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY_Ry8J_jdw

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.

Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.

It also falls down because it assumes God is, erm, bothered with that.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It also falls down because it assumes God

Even further fixed. :wink:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even further fixed. :wink:

:rolleyes:

That is a basic assumption in Theology.

[TheLastDays]

Does anyone here belivie in it?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things

I'm not a 100% calvinist but what are the issues you have a hard time figuring out?

[Skullheadhq]

no im a heathen catholic.

predestination just sounds stupid and depressing to me.

And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .

[Strike For The South]

So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?

[Skullheadhq]

So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?

God's irresistible grace will make his elect live in a Godly manner, I suppose.

[TheLastDays]

So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?

IMO predestination and free will work together in a way we don't really understand yet, kinda like the trinity or the Christ's nature as being both fully god and fully man.
We live in free will and so our actions do matter as we are responsible for what we do.

[Rhyfelwyr]

IMO predestination and free will work together in a way we don't really understand yet, kinda like the trinity or the Christ's nature as being both fully god and fully man.
We live in free will and so our actions do matter as we are responsible for what we do.

Hate to break it to you but you are 0% Calvinist.


And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .

Catholicism =/= semi-Pelagianism. Semi-pelagianism/Arminianism is an offshoot of Reformed theology, Arminius himself studied under Calvin's successor Theodore Beza at Geneva.

As for Augustine he was Calvin's hero figure but in all honestly he wasn't very 'Calvinistic'. If you really want to see the roots of double predestination (the Calvinist kind, with Luther's being single predestination) in the Catholic Church then you will find it very clearly in the works of Aquinas.


So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?

Being moral is a noble end in itself, not a means to salvation.

So some things to clear up...

People always conflate two things when talking about free will and Calvinism. The first is free will in general, the second man's ability to be saved.

Now when it comes to the first, this is where God's foreknowledge comes in. Everything might be pretedermined, but only because there is only one way anyone would act in any given situation. Now in a past debate on this forum I called this determinism and while people didn't like what they thought that term to mean, in the end the atheists came round and said that my idea of determinism is in fact their idea of free will. Basically, in any situation, you will be prone to act a certain way, and so you act that way. That's all it is, nothing malicious there IMO. You might even wonder how what appears to be common sense could have at one time been such a revolutionary doctrine and one that still abhors so many people, I guess its just because of all the fantastical theories other theologians went to the trouble of forming because they thought the idea of predestination to be so horrible.

Anyway, what Calvinists do wholeheartedly affirm is that man is competely unable to turn to God and ask to be saved without God's grace first making them inclined to do so.

This is what people dislike most about Calvinism. For some reason they obsess on the foreknowledge aspect of it, although in reality what they have a problem with is the 'total depravity' part, since that's the part when man loses all ability to save himself, and instead God chooses a number of people to be saved.

And this for me is what Christianity is all about. I find the idea of claiming I had the least role in my being born again to be unthinkable, I just don't understand the mentality of Christians that can really come out and say that they made a decision to save themselves.

[TheLastDays]

Hate to break it to you but you are 0% Calvinist.

This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.

Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?

[Noncommunist]

This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.

Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?

I've heard that Rob Bell, a fairly famous christian speaker claims that God did elect everyone.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.

No what you are saying doesn't make sense. I don't see how you can brush it off and just say "well the Trinity doesn't make sense either". What scriptures do you base your beliefs on?


Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?

It says that God would like everyone to come to him and be saved. The problem is that nobody would.

If you are going to ask why only some were saved, I think it would be better for you to ask yourself why any are saved.

When you do that, you will learn to see things from a God-centred and not man-centred perspective.

[TheLastDays]

No what you are saying doesn't make sense. I don't see how you can brush it off and just say "well the Trinity doesn't make sense either". What scriptures do you base your beliefs on?

It says that God would like everyone to come to him and be saved. The problem is that nobody would.

If you are going to ask why only some were saved, I think it would be better for you to ask yourself why any are saved.

When you do that, you will learn to see things from a God-centred and not man-centred perspective.

You are not answering my question.
It makes no sense that God, who wants everyone to be saved, would not elect everyone to be saved. If there is no free will involved, that God could overrule but chooses not to overrule then what you are saying hints that something else is hindering God from electing/saving everyone and that's nonsense.

As I said, I don't understand the way it works completely but both concepts on their own (predestination and free will) don't work, scritpurally. Since there are scriptures supporting both I can only assume that both principles are at work somehow. The trinity is never mentioned directly in the Bible either. We base it on the faith, that we have one God yet we believe in the father, the son and the holy spirit. We have scriptures that are supporting the deity of a father, Christ and the holy spirit seperately and we have some vague scriptures mentioning some aspects of them together but in the end the trinity is not mentioned in a scripture specifically. Yet we believe it nonetheless, I do too. But from our logical point of view it makes no sense.

[Sigurd]

On trinitarianism (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?121252-Theological-Debate.).

There is a thread about pre-destination in here as well, but I couldn't find it.

[Vladimir]

That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.

Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.


Is it bad that one of my favorite Tennant Dr. Who episodes is one where the main characters are seen the least?

Blink is brilliant though.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Regarding the debate on trinitarianism, I just like the fact that nobody noticed that Jesus was in fact a woman.

In the name of the (Divine) Father, the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

[Centurion1]

And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .

The issue with that being that the Church has moved away from its beliefs in 431 AD. According to your reasoning I should also be a total heretic for believing in evolution. Also Augustine and Calvin have superficial similarities at best.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I'm a Presbyterian and I do believe in Predestination.... To a certain extent anyhow. :book::dizzy2:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I believe God gives us the free choice to be predestined or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The issue with that being that the Church has moved away from its beliefs in 431 AD. According to your reasoning I should also be a total heretic for believing in evolution. Also Augustine and Calvin have superficial similarities at best.

Augustine believed in evolution.

[Centurion1]

The church as a whole did not in 500 AD.

I daresay you know exactly what I meant but are just being difficult.

[Tuuvi]

Wait how could Augustine and the church in 500 AD believe in evolution? I thought the theory didn't come about until the 19th century.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The church as a whole did not in 500 AD.

I daresay you know exactly what I meant but are just being difficult.


Wait how could Augustine and the church in 500 AD believe in evolution? I thought the theory didn't come about until the 19th century.

Well, first of all, Augustine was long dead by 500 AD, nearly a century in fact.

Secondly, Darwinian evolution was first proposed in the 19th Century but the theory was a scientific crock until we were able to verify Mendelevian genetics and "modern" evolutionary theory is far advanced from Darwin's original hypothesis, it even includes elements of Lamarkism. However, the concept of evolution is actually a very obvious one, animals develop and adapt, just as people do. It has always been plain to see for all stock breeders, and it was a fairly uncontentious stance until quite recently. Nor has is ever been vigarously opposed by the Churches on religious grounds, in so far as it was opposed it was on the basis of scientific scepticism.

[Skullheadhq]

Regarding the debate on trinitarianism, I just like the fact that nobody noticed that Jesus was in fact a woman.

In the name of the (Divine) Father, the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Ah, well that explains why Scripture states that no women should teach...
And Augustine (and Calvin to some extend) believed Genesis should not be taken too literal. Since why should God rest on the 7th day when he can't be tired. And why was the earth created in 7 days when God could have done it in no time? The sentence 'omnia simul fecit ' somewhere in the apocryphs proved that theory for Augustine.

[Tuuvi]

Well, first of all, Augustine was long dead by 500 AD, nearly a century in fact.

Secondly, Darwinian evolution was first proposed in the 19th Century but the theory was a scientific crock until we were able to verify Mendelevian genetics and "modern" evolutionary theory is far advanced from Darwin's original hypothesis, it even includes elements of Lamarkism. However, the concept of evolution is actually a very obvious one, animals develop and adapt, just as people do. It has always been plain to see for all stock breeders, and it was a fairly uncontentious stance until quite recently. Nor has is ever been vigarously opposed by the Churches on religious grounds, in so far as it was opposed it was on the basis of scientific scepticism.

Oh ok I understand now, thanks.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are not answering my question.
It makes no sense that God, who wants everyone to be saved, would not elect everyone to be saved. If there is no free will involved, that God could overrule but chooses not to overrule then what you are saying hints that something else is hindering God from electing/saving everyone and that's nonsense.

What separates us from God and hinders us from being saved is our sin. Now as you said God would really like us all to come to him freely and renounce our sins. But since we didn't he had to go and die on the cross and very specifically bore the sins for all those that he chose to actively save.

People don't like that fact that Calvinists say God only saved some. But you should consider that with your own view of things and indeed the Arminian and Catholics views, God saved nobody. Some food for thought...

[Centurion1]

What separates us from God and hinders us from being saved is our sin. Now as you said God would really like us all to come to him freely and renounce our sins. But since we didn't he had to go and die on the cross and very specifically bore the sins for all those that he chose to actively save.

People don't like that fact that Calvinists say God only saved some. But you should consider that with your own view of things and indeed the Arminian and Catholics views, God saved nobody. Some food for thought...

Calvinism is completely silly which is why such a tiny percentage of people follow it. And yes I will call it dumb since you think my religion is the Whore of Babylon.

God could have simply forgiven us, but amends still have to be made for our sins; that's why we're still held responsible for our sins even though christ died. We don't just "get forgiven". We need to make up for all of our sins. Christs crucifixion simply opened the doorway for us to be able to have that opportunity to make amends for our sins.

Not to mention you have no idea what exactly gods reasoning for was since yah know its a mystery of the faith.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvinism is completely silly which is why such a tiny percentage of people follow it. And yes I will call it dumb since you think my religion is the Whore of Babylon.

Wow the handbags are coming out early today...


God could have simply forgiven us, but amends still have to be made for our sins; that's why we're still held responsible for our sins even though christ died. We don't just "get forgiven". We need to make up for all of our sins. Christs crucifixion simply opened the doorway for us to be able to have that opportunity to make amends for our sins.

If God simply let our sins go unpunished then he wouldn't be a just God. That's the point in the whole coming to earth as Jesus thing - so he could forgive us by taking the punishment for our sins upon himself. That's the whole glory of what he did on the cross! Heck that's Catholic theology!

Or else what do you think the crucifixion was for?

As for making amends for sins you can never in the slightest bit making the tiniest amendment for the least of your sins. The wages of sin is death and that is so for every little sin so unless you plan on dying you are not amending your sins. That's why I'm so happy Jesus died for me!

[Centurion1]

amendment is improper word usage.

You belong to a religion where absolution from one's sins is impossible. I however, do not. I can repent of my sins and be forgiven by God. My soul is wiped clean of all sins i repent of truly. Your belief that what you said is Catholic theology is incorrect. It is said that Jesus died on the cross to open up heaven for those who came after and before him. Jesus also cured us of our innate original sin more than anything else. Sins which we as individuals commit wit hour free will are not forgiven because Jesus died on a cross. Our original sin however is healed.

[Samurai Waki]

The only thing I'm taking away from this is that 'my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is said that Jesus died on the cross to open up heaven for those who came after and before him. Jesus also cured us of our innate original sin more than anything else. Sins which we as individuals commit wit hour free will are not forgiven because Jesus died on a cross. Our original sin however is healed.

God only knows what such flowery language is supposed to actually mean.

btw don't try praying through Aquinas because he is very upset with you...


The only thing I'm taking away from this is that 'my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus'.

That's what I love about Calvinism, it's all about Jesus. Jesus died for my sins, Jesus led me to saving faith, and Jesus keeps me going every day!

Cent says himself that Jesus didn't die for him, he chooses to have faith himself and he keeps himself safe from sin every day.

And they say the God of Calvinism is heartless!

Anyway, at least it seems that Cent will be able to hold his head high when he comes before God on the day of judgment!

[Centurion1]

God only knows what such flowery language is supposed to actually mean.

btw don't try praying through Aquinas because he is very upset with you...



That's what I love about Calvinism, it's all about Jesus. Jesus died for my sins, Jesus led me to saving faith, and Jesus keeps me going every day!

Cent says himself that Jesus didn't die for him, he chooses to have faith himself and he keeps himself safe from sin every day.

And they say the God of Calvinism is heartless!

Anyway, at least it seems that Cent will be able to hold his head high when he comes before God on the day of judgment!

:thumbsdown: The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

:thumbsdown: The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

Well the beliefs you are displaying here don't seem to come from any (major at least) strain of Catholic thought. Got any sources (preferably Biblical)?


Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow.

So do you not believe that you commit murder every day?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:thumbsdown: The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

This is not Catholic, or catholic. All major Christian denominations hold that salvation comes exclusively through Faith, even the Roman Church. In so far as your actions have an effect it is non the ammount of penitence required and therefore spent in purgatory.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is not Catholic, or catholic. All major Christian denominations hold that salvation comes exclusively through Faith, even the Roman Church. In so far as your actions have an effect it is non the ammount of penitence required and therefore spent in purgatory.

I always knew you would jump to my defence in this thread!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I always knew you would jump to my defence in this thread!

Well, he's some sort of Papist, isn't he?

[Centurion1]

This is not Catholic, or catholic. All major Christian denominations hold that salvation comes exclusively through Faith, even the Roman Church. In so far as your actions have an effect it is non the ammount of penitence required and therefore spent in purgatory.

Faith alone will not send you to heaven the catholic churches doctrine says this. Non catholics and even atheists can go to heaven so long as they live a good and moral life. Maybe whatever medieval theology you ascribe too doesn't allow non believers into paradise but the modern Roman Catholic church believes in a little something called inclusivism. Your just wrong in believing that faith alone in Christ can save your soul.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, he's some sort of Papist, isn't he?

lulz

The thing is its no longer just about the Catholic Church. Gone are my days of being the typical hardline Reformed Calvinist. I have now disavowed my association with mainstream Protestantism (even traditional Calvinism) since I think too much of it is remants of Romanism.

I've got a new narrative where there is no theonomy and everything is based on natural law and in that sense the scripture just states what is written on our hearts by nature (it even says that). And as such all organised religion is Babylonian and idolatrous and a hearkback to the bondage of the law.

I actually think its a really good narrative and fits in really well with Revelation since it coincides with the return of the Jews to their homeland and the establishment of the one world religion. Although I am going against the letter of the Protestant reformers I think that I have the spirit of Reformation - rooting out idolatry and getting back to the scripture.

Reading that back it sounds pretty damn crazy. At least its a nice counterbalance to your annoying moderation!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Faith alone will not send you to heaven the catholic churches doctrine says this. Non catholics and even atheists can go to heaven so long as they live a good and moral life. Maybe whatever medieval theology you ascribe too doesn't allow non believers into paradise but the modern Roman Catholic church believes in a little something called inclusivism. Your just wrong in believing that faith alone in Christ can save your soul.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong - the Roman Catholic Church has signed agreements with protestant Churchs to the effect that you are wrong.

What I should have said, however, is that salvation comes exclusively through Christ, not Faith. Faith, fidas is the holding but it is what you hold which is important. Now, where others, even atheists might be included is in the space between Christ and Christ's teachings. I think the general line is that so long as you ask for forgiveness you may be allowed into heaven.

Of course, this disallows the self-justifying New Atheists who demand everything on their own terms.

[Centurion1]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong - the Roman Catholic Church has signed agreements with protestant Churchs to the effect that you are wrong.

What I should have said, however, is that salvation comes exclusively through Christ, not Faith. Faith, fidas is the holding but it is what you hold which is important. Now, where others, even atheists might be included is in the space between Christ and Christ's teachings. I think the general line is that so long as you ask for forgiveness you may be allowed into heaven.

Of course, this disallows the self-justifying New Atheists who demand everything on their own terms.

Inclusivism has been the position of the Roman Catholic church since Vatican two in the 1960's. Inclusivism as proposed by Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic. The most important thing for an individual to do is to lead a moral lifestyle which mirrors the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' moral teachings being pretty basic to any decent person on earth.

So no you are incorrect. The church does not believe that you have to convert to reach heaven, though it may help you.

I believe the latin you are looking for is fides not fidas.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic.

But what does Jesus state?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Inclusivism has been the position of the Roman Catholic church since Vatican two in the 1960's. Inclusivism as proposed by Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic. The most important thing for an individual to do is to lead a moral lifestyle which mirrors the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' moral teachings being pretty basic to any decent person on earth.

So no you are incorrect. The church does not believe that you have to convert to reach heaven, though it may help you.

And yet.... John Paul II authorised a Catechism that says Faith in Christ is necessary, and Vatican II is pretty much in tatters now anyway.


I believe the latin you are looking for is fides not fidas.

How drol. I must confess I did not check for the correct case before posting.

[Centurion1]

And yet the current Pope Benedict known for his conservative values is moving the church even further to fully embracing inclusivism.

Not to mention you. are. once. again. wrong.

Here are two John Paul II quotes for you to munch on.


That all who live a just life will be saved, even if they do not believe in Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church."

and even more damning


"The gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes, poor in spirit, the pure in heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life, will enter God's Kingdom

This is addressing criticisms regarding the Dominus Iesus which I believe is the document you are using as evidence. You need to read it again because Pope John Paul ended up addressing that pint with a statement,


"This confession does not deny salvation to non-Christians, but points to its ultimate source in Christ, in whom man and God are united."


How drol. I must confess I did not check for the correct case before posting.

Some of the sting of a sarcastic riposte is lost when words are misspelled.

[TheLastDays]

What separates us from God and hinders us from being saved is our sin. Now as you said God would really like us all to come to him freely and renounce our sins. But since we didn't he had to go and die on the cross and very specifically bore the sins for all those that he chose to actively save.

People don't like that fact that Calvinists say God only saved some. But you should consider that with your own view of things and indeed the Arminian and Catholics views, God saved nobody. Some food for thought...

You are still not answering my question. Let me rephrase/restate it:

We know God wants all to be saved. He chooses who gets salvation. Why does he not choose everyone? Go.

What speaks against the possibility that Christ atoned for all sins of all mankind and lifted the burden of total depravity from us, making it possible for us to choose and then he left us the choice?




If God simply let our sins go unpunished then he wouldn't be a just God. That's the point in the whole coming to earth as Jesus thing - so he could forgive us by taking the punishment for our sins upon himself. That's the whole glory of what he did on the cross! Heck that's Catholic theology!

Or else what do you think the crucifixion was for?

As for making amends for sins you can never in the slightest bit making the tiniest amendment for the least of your sins. The wages of sin is death and that is so for every little sin so unless you plan on dying you are not amending your sins. That's why I'm so happy Jesus died for me!

No argument from me here :yes:


amendment is improper word usage.

You belong to a religion where absolution from one's sins is impossible. I however, do not. I can repent of my sins and be forgiven by God. My soul is wiped clean of all sins i repent of truly. Your belief that what you said is Catholic theology is incorrect. It is said that Jesus died on the cross to open up heaven for those who came after and before him. Jesus also cured us of our innate original sin more than anything else. Sins which we as individuals commit wit hour free will are not forgiven because Jesus died on a cross. Our original sin however is healed.


:thumbsdown: The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

I thought he pretty much was...


Faith alone will not send you to heaven the catholic churches doctrine says this. Non catholics and even atheists can go to heaven so long as they live a good and moral life. Maybe whatever medieval theology you ascribe too doesn't allow non believers into paradise but the modern Roman Catholic church believes in a little something called inclusivism. Your just wrong in believing that faith alone in Christ can save your soul.

Now here I look away for a moment and out of a thread that argued about predestination, which can be argued well inside of christian doctrine you made a case that desintegrates the very fabrics of the christian faith.

There is no salvation apart from Christ. Now, it's your right to believe otherwise but then you are not a christian. It's that simple.
Your good deeds will get you nowhere. Deeds/Works are a part of the faith, a very important part tbh, but they do not save you.


Inclusivism has been the position of the Roman Catholic church since Vatican two in the 1960's. Inclusivism as proposed by Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic. The most important thing for an individual to do is to lead a moral lifestyle which mirrors the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' moral teachings being pretty basic to any decent person on earth.

So no you are incorrect. The church does not believe that you have to convert to reach heaven, though it may help you.

I believe the latin you are looking for is fides not fidas.

I couldn't care less what Karl Rahner states or "the church" believes. What does the bible state? What did Jesus say?



The thing is its no longer just about the Catholic Church. Gone are my days of being the typical hardline Reformed Calvinist. I have now disavowed my association with mainstream Protestantism (even traditional Calvinism) since I think too much of it is remants of Romanism.

I've got a new narrative where there is no theonomy and everything is based on natural law and in that sense the scripture just states what is written on our hearts by nature (it even says that). And as such all organised religion is Babylonian and idolatrous and a hearkback to the bondage of the law.


Well, you do realize that you have just called a good part of the New Testament protagonists heretics, don't you? There was "organised religion" from the earliest days of christianity. If you want to disagree please specify what you call organised religion.

[Centurion1]

You are still not answering my question. Let me rephrase/restate it:

We know God wants all to be saved. He chooses who gets salvation. Why does he not choose everyone? Go.

What speaks against the possibility that Christ atoned for all sins of all mankind and lifted the burden of total depravity from us, making it possible for us to choose and then he left us the choice?




No argument from me here :yes:





I thought he pretty much was...



Now here I look away for a moment and out of a thread that argued about predestination, which can be argued well inside of christian doctrine you made a case that desintegrates the very fabrics of the christian faith.

There is no salvation apart from Christ. Now, it's your right to believe otherwise but then you are not a christian. It's that simple.
Your good deeds will get you nowhere. Deeds/Works are a part of the faith, a very important part tbh, but they do not save you.



I couldn't care less what Karl Rahner states or "the church" believes. What does the bible state? What did Jesus say?



Well, you do realize that you have just called a good part of the New Testament protagonists heretics, don't you? There was "organised religion" from the earliest days of christianity. If you want to disagree please specify what you call organised religion.

I think that bible literalists are fools. I think you do not really know what you are talking to in regards to the bible since I could go through it and find plenty of quotes to agree with me as could people who wanted to do half a dozen wicked things. I think your understanding of the most loving gentlest man the earth has ever known and a God himself are warped. Telling me you couldn't care less what what my Church and solves nothing besides demonstrating your intolerance.


You can follow your foolish hateful faith or whatever twisted form of literalism you think is right but I laugh at your ignorance; but to put my faith on the table and say that I am unchristian is uncalled for. Here is your truth. Faith alone will not earn you jack **** in the Fathers paradise.

A literalist understanding of the Bible is incorrect, God inspired the writers he did not but pen to paper himself. The human writers were still fallible and limited by the knowledge of their time. Tell me how old do you think earth is? 4000 years or so? Not to mention calling the New Testament individuals "protagonists" is dumb. They are not characters in a book. And early Christianity was not an organized religion it was simply a disliked sub sect of Judaism.

Predestination doesn't fit inside of the Christian faith. To believe in predestination is to believe against free will. Because we have no impact on where we will go when we die there is a lack of free will. A concept which is anathema to Christianity.

Finally, I will say one further time. YOU GO LOOK UP INCLUSIVISM; YOU GO FIND A DEFINITION AND TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT IN THE MATTER SINCE EVERYTHING YOU SAY YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT LOOK INTO AT ALL.

I'll just be over here laughing until you do.

[TheLastDays]

I think that bible literalists are fools. I think you do not really know what you are talking to in regards to the bible since I could go through it and find plenty of quotes to agree with me as could people who wanted to do half a dozen wicked things. I think your understanding of the most loving gentlest man the earth has ever known and a God himself are warped. Telling me you couldn't care less what what my Church and solves nothing besides demonstrating your intolerance.

What I'm saying is: Why should the teachings of the roman catholic church hold more authority than the scriptures they profess to base their faith on?


You can follow your foolish hateful faith or whatever twisted form of literalism you think is right but I laugh at your ignorance; but to put my faith on the table and say that I am unchristian is uncalled for. Here is your truth. Faith alone will not earn you jack **** in the Fathers paradise.

Then, if I don't base it on the bible, how do I identify what is orthodox (in the literal meaning of the word) christianity and what is heresy?
But do me a favour and explain to me your soteriology because it seems to differ from what most catholics I've been talking to believe. Maybe then I can find a better way of debating with you.


A literalist understanding of the Bible is incorrect, God inspired the writers he did not but pen to paper himself. The human writers were still fallible and limited by the knowledge of their time. Tell me how old do you think earth is? 4000 years or so?

I am not sure about the age of the earth. I am not a "literalist" in the sense you seem to understand the word. I do not take every word of scripture literally but if I can just go ahead and create doctrines the way they seem fitting to me, why would I call myself a christian? I would be a Thelastdaysian in that case... I hope you get what I mean, I'm not trying to offend you or anything.


Not to mention calling the New Testament individuals "protagonists" is dumb. They are not characters in a book. And early Christianity was not an organized religion it was simply a disliked sub sect of Judaism.

Putting two arguments that are of entirely different nature and quality together in one paragraph to make them seem equal. Nifty. Went ahead and split it up for you :yes:

I used the term "protagonists" for lack of a better term. English is not my main language and I am sometimes, quite literally, at a loss for words.
It was not "organised religion" like the roman catholic church, that much is true, but, i.e. Paul clearly describes organization in his letters, which is why I asked for Rhy's definition of "organised religion".


Predestination doesn't fit inside of the Christian faith. To believe in predestination is to believe against free will. Because we have no impact on where we will go when we die there is a lack of free will. A concept which is anathema to Christianity.

Not true. I believe in both the concept of predestination and the concept of free will. You know what is anathema to Christianity? That you can do anything good out of yourself.


Finally, I will say one further time. YOU GO LOOK UP INCLUSIVISM; YOU GO FIND A DEFINITION AND TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT IN THE MATTER SINCE EVERYTHING YOU SAY YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT LOOK INTO AT ALL.

I'll just be over here laughing until you do.

Your arguments don't get better when you capitalize every letter. Please define inclusivism to me, the way you'd define it. Thanks :yes:

[Centurion1]

What I'm saying is: Why should the teachings of the roman catholic church hold more authority than the scriptures they profess to base their faith on?



Then, if I don't base it on the bible, how do I identify what is orthodox (in the literal meaning of the word) christianity and what is heresy?
But do me a favour and explain to me your soteriology because it seems to differ from what most catholics I've been talking to believe. Maybe then I can find a better way of debating with you.



I am not sure about the age of the earth. I am not a "literalist" in the sense you seem to understand the word. I do not take every word of scripture literally but if I can just go ahead and create doctrines the way they seem fitting to me, why would I call myself a christian? I would be a Thelastdaysian in that case... I hope you get what I mean, I'm not trying to offend you or anything.



Putting two arguments that are of entirely different nature and quality together in one paragraph to make them seem equal. Nifty. Went ahead and split it up for you :yes:

I used the term "protagonists" for lack of a better term. English is not my main language and I am sometimes, quite literally, at a loss for words.
It was not "organised religion" like the roman catholic church, that much is true, but, i.e. Paul clearly describes organization in his letters, which is why I asked for Rhy's definition of "organised religion".



Not true. I believe in both the concept of predestination and the concept of free will. You know what is anathema to Christianity? That you can do anything good out of yourself.



Your arguments don't get better when you capitalize every letter. Please define inclusivism to me, the way you'd define it. Thanks :yes:

The church interprets the Scripture.

No good catholic believes in Exclusivism. They do not understand their faith if they say so.

It still was not an organized religion. It was a sub sect of Judaism in its early days. It was still part of another religion rather than being its own.

Humanity is innately a good being. We are innately good because we are made in the image and likeness of God. How can we be anything else.


2. Inclusivism -- "One religion is best but salvation is possible in other religions."

"Inclusivism" is the position that one religion is uniquely true but salvation is accessible to those outside of that faith. For example, a Christian inclusivist might say, "I am a Christian and I think Christianity is the most correct religion, but I also think there is saving truth in other religions like Islam and Hinduism. People of other faiths can be saved by Jesus even if they do not explicitly believe in Him." Inclusivists do not go as far as pluralists in that inclusivists do not claim that all religions are equal. They do believe, though, that truth and salvation can be found in other religions. Some Christian inclusivists claim that the salvation of Jesus is unknowingly applied to adherents of other religions who live good, moral lives. Catholic and Inclusvist theologian, Karl Rahner, referred to such people as “anonymous Christians.”

The sixteenth century reformer Ulrich Zwingli held to a form of Inclusivism. In more recent years, Karl Rahner helped popularize this perspective. The Roman Catholic Church and several mainline Protestant denominations have also shifted toward Inclusivism in recent decades. The Roman Catholic “Vatican II Council” of the 1960s explicitly declared that people of other religions could be saved. Evangelical theologian, Clark Pinnock, too, has espoused Inclusivism. Traditionally, religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have been proponents of Inclusivism as well.


Sigh. I am the only person in this entire argument to post a link the only person to post an actual quote. Why doesn't anybody else back up their words why must I always be the one to find support. Stop being so damn lazy.

[TheLastDays]

The church interprets the Scripture.
No good catholic believes in Exclusivism. They do not understand their faith if they say so.

Then please give me the scriptures that support the idea that you can obtain salvation from any other source but Jesus Christ.


It still was not an organized religion. It was a sub sect of Judaism in its early days. It was still part of another religion rather than being its own.

Correct. As I said, that's the reason I asked Rhy if by "organised religion" he meant an organised religion like the roman catholic church or just the level of organisation that's present already in the New Testament or anything in between.


Humanity is innately a good being. We are innately good because we are made in the image and likeness of God. How can we be anything else.

That is before the fall. After that we are of sinful nature and no one is righteous before God. That's out of the bible by the way. How would you interpret Romans 3:10-28?


Sigh. I am the only person in this entire argument to post a link the only person to post an actual quote. Why doesn't anybody else back up their words why must I always be the one to find support. Stop being so damn lazy.

That would be because I googled "inclusivism" and found three, in my eyes, different definitions. I wanted to know which one you're talking about.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No good catholic believes in Exclusivism. They do not understand their faith if they say so.

So all the Popes up until the last few were not Catholics?


Humanity is innately a good being. We are innately good because we are made in the image and likeness of God. How can we be anything else.

So I guess David was wrong to state "behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5)?

Do you also disagree with Jesus when he says "everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34)?

Or Paul - "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God" (Romans 3:10-11)?


Sigh. I am the only person in this entire argument to post a link the only person to post an actual quote. Why doesn't anybody else back up their words why must I always be the one to find support. Stop being so damn lazy.

You've only quoted the Pope and some Catholics, as if they had some sort of authority on the matter.


We know God wants all to be saved. He chooses who gets salvation. Why does he not choose everyone? Go.

God would like everyone to save themselves. When you talk about God wanting all people to be saved you are talking about a whole different process and clearly God only wanted that for some people.

So in the sense you are talking about it, God didn't want everyone to be saved.


Well, you do realize that you have just called a good part of the New Testament protagonists heretics, don't you? There was "organised religion" from the earliest days of christianity. If you want to disagree please specify what you call organised religion.

What I meant by that is ritualistic religion and the hierarchies in the church, which are both most certainly not in the New Testament.

For example, the ritualistic manner with which many Protestants treat "communion" is unbiblical. As are many of the clerical positions they have, and the whole idea of ministers/pastors wearing special garments etc. All unbiblical. It's not just that these ideas lack biblical support, they are actively condemned by it.

[TheLastDays]

God would like everyone to save themselves. When you talk about God wanting all people to be saved you are talking about a whole different process and clearly God only wanted that for some people.

So in the sense you are talking about it, God didn't want everyone to be saved.

Scripture please.


What I meant by that is ritualistic religion and the hierarchies in the church, which are both most certainly not in the New Testament.

For example, the ritualistic manner with which many Protestants treat "communion" is unbiblical. As are many of the clerical positions they have, and the whole idea of ministers/pastors wearing special garments etc. All unbiblical. It's not just that these ideas lack biblical support, they are actively condemned by it.

Yeah, I kinda agree to some of that. Not completely on the part of communion and there was some hierarchy in the early church as well but you do have points there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet the current Pope Benedict known for his conservative values is moving the church even further to fully embracing inclusivism.

Not to mention you. are. once. again. wrong.

Here are two John Paul II quotes for you to munch on.

and even more damning

This is addressing criticisms regarding the Dominus Iesus which I believe is the document you are using as evidence. You need to read it again because Pope John Paul ended up addressing that pint with a statement,

Some of the sting of a sarcastic riposte is lost when words are misspelled.

Oh well nevermind.

Looks like Roman Catholicism has really gone of the reservation if it's actually positing merit-based salvation.

[Populus Romanus]

:vaticancity:Catholic:vaticancity:

I would just to stop by and say that the two branches of Christianity that can claim legitimacy are Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Protestantism cannot.

[Skullheadhq]

:vaticancity:Catholic:vaticancity:

I would just to stop by and say that the two branches of Christianity that can claim legitimacy are Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Protestantism cannot.

It was the Latin Church who seceded (again: earlier it seceded during the iconoclasm and I think during the aftermath of the Arian controversy) from the Apostolic Church in 1054 with Cardinal Humbertus' schism, we seceded from you again. You are not apostolic either, but you can pretend you are if it makes you happy. The Pope is just one of the five patriarchs from the pentarchy, he's only schismatic, that's all. And if you think that schismatics can be apostolic, does that mean the donatists were?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:vaticancity:Catholic:vaticancity:

I would just to stop by and say that the two branches of Christianity that can claim legitimacy are Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Protestantism cannot.

I can cite Medieval Canon Law which shows the Pope has no right to interfere in a national Church, and as such the Churches with historical and continuous Episcopates can be considered Apostolic. I can also cite Ecumunical Councils which give the House of Bishops, without the College of Cardinals, the right to depose the Pope and elect a successor in extremis.

I can even give you the sessions in Latin, if you like.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Don't bother, he's simply wrong. Pretty much any Church can claim legitimacy, and point to their interpretation of the Bible or other works for their support. As long as people are willing to believe their dogma, that is.

Meanwhile, given that one can construct arguments to make the Bible and other works fit pretty much any narrative you wish to support, isn't it all a bit pointless? I mean even you, a smart well educated person with probably rather better grasp of Latin slips up in a basic mistake of gender -- so what are the odds that the under-educated slaves and monks didn't mess up far worse through years of little slip ups filtered into Canon? And that's before one even considers the more difficult issue of contradictions...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't bother, he's simply wrong. Pretty much any Church can claim legitimacy, and point to their interpretation of the Bible or other works for their support. As long as people are willing to believe their dogma, that is.

Meanwhile, given that one can construct arguments to make the Bible and other works fit pretty much any narrative you wish to support, isn't it all a bit pointless? I mean even you, a smart well educated person with probably rather better grasp of Latin slips up in a basic mistake of gender -- so what are the odds that the under-educated slaves and monks didn't mess up far worse through years of little slip ups filtered into Canon? And that's before one even considers the more difficult issue of contradictions...

Do you know (you probably do), medieval Latin literacy and scribal error in the copying of the Latin Vulgate is a really interesting topic, not least because they did know when mistakes were made and they could correct them. They could also correct varient spellings and errors of conjugation and declension.

However, I have been squinting at Middle English scrawl for six months, and John Shirley couldn't spell to save his life. In fact, he spells "lyf" differently every other line!

[TheLastDays]

The "correctness" (sorry) of the bible in general should maybe be discussed in a different thread just as the "legitimacy" of any church or denomination.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The "correctness" (sorry) of the bible in general should maybe be discussed in a different thread just as the "legitimacy" of any church or denomination.

We were talking about scribal error, which is a well documented fact in relation to Biblical manuscripts.

[Centurion1]

The later the writing of the specific edition the more inaccuracies present. For example, the KJ while a beautifully written work is far different than the earlier latin scripts. Those same latin scripts are different from the even earlier Hebrew and Greek copies we have found.

Human error exists in everything. Especially when a document is first recorded by stories that were told by word of mouth.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Give me one doctrine these "errors" would change.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Just an example: there are American churches out there which preach that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are not in fact part of the same Godhead/being/thing. How? Well they manage to mis-translate a single fairly basic Greek word for “one” (as in: “one” guy).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The later the writing of the specific edition the more inaccuracies present. For example, the KJ while a beautifully written work is far different than the earlier latin scripts. Those same latin scripts are different from the even earlier Hebrew and Greek copies we have found.

Human error exists in everything. Especially when a document is first recorded by stories that were told by word of mouth.

This is not necessarily true, Erasmus' Vulgate is an improvement on Jerome's, the modern NRSV incorporates texts to available to anyone since the second century, and while it overmodernises it has copius footnotes to identify the deviations.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Give me one doctrine these "errors" would change.

The biggest screw up was that Jesus was widely regarded by the fishing community of Nazareth as a "crapenterer" (Galilean slang for an unmarried chap who hangs around with guys) but St Minan the Bewildered (who despite his dyslexia had made a good career in scribing) mistook this in the context of a third hand story about getting wood, and the rest is history and woefully misplaced prejudice.

:wink:

[Adrian II]

The biggest screw up was that Jesus was widely regarded by the fishing community of Nazareth as a "crapenterer" (Galilean slang for an unmarried chap who hangs around with guys) but St Minan the Bewildered (who despite his dyslexia had made a good career in scribing) mistook this in the context of a third hand story about getting wood, and the rest is history and woefully misplaced prejudice.

:wink:

:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The biggest screw up was that Jesus was widely regarded by the fishing community of Nazareth as a "crapenterer" (Galilean slang for an unmarried chap who hangs around with guys) but St Minan the Bewildered (who despite his dyslexia had made a good career in scribing) mistook this in the context of a third hand story about getting wood, and the rest is history and woefully misplaced prejudice.

:wink:

My lips twitched.

I have to ask though: what's the point behind all the "Gay Jesus" jokes, it feels a bit self defeating. It implies straight Jesus wouldn't have been tollerant enough.

[classical_hero]

Augustine believed in evolution.No he did not. He believed in an Earth that was not many thousands of years old. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm This the title of one the chapters of his Magnum Opus "The City of God" in the 12th book " Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past" Here he is arguing against an old earth, which is the crux of the issue of Evolution. Given enough time, miracles can happen.

[Papewaio]

The crux of evolution is passing a template to the next generation.

Time is more of a requirement in seeing the results. Given enough time and you get more then enough variety. Each generation can have a change, seeing those results withou DNA testing can take many generations to see.

The age of the Earth is a geological and/or astronomical area of endeavour. Mind you the various fields of science can be used to calibrate and test the other fields. That the age of the Earth is ample enough for Evolution from inanimate to cell to multicellullar life is apparent within the fossil record. That age of sediments can be approximately dated by matching the fossils within them with other such fossil sites around the world.

Scientists get a perverse joy in tearing down theories, even their own if they can find a more elegant solution that fits the data.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No he did not. He believed in an Earth that was not many thousands of years old. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm This the title of one the chapters of his Magnum Opus "The City of God" in the 12th book " Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past" Here he is arguing against an old earth, which is the crux of the issue of Evolution. Given enough time, miracles can happen.

Have you read what you quoted? Augustine is aguing against the belief in cyclical time, rather than linear (Christian) time, which was one of the most important gifts Christianity gave to scientific enquiry. He is also correct within his knowledge, he can only date from written history and no written history goes back more much further than the Bible. I will, however, check that quote as I am supcicious of "not six thousand years", as that is a modern figure and would make Augustine's world about 2,000 years older than Bishop Ussher's 1200 years later.

Just because Augustine doesn't believe in an Earth which is billions of years old does not mean he believes life does not develop, quite the opposite in fact.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The age of the Earth is a geological and/or astronomical area of endeavour. Mind you the various fields of science can be used to calibrate and test the other fields. That the age of the Earth is ample enough for Evolution from inanimate to cell to multicellullar life is apparent within the fossil record. That age of sediments can be approximately dated by matching the fossils within them with other such fossil sites around the world.

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

[gaelic cowboy]

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

Fossils are dated by carbon are they not, by definition it would be dead and therefore the carbon content would be datable, and I was always under the impression things like sediments were dated by things like lead or uranium decay??

Furnuculus is the man to ask

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fossils are dated by carbon are they not, by definition it would be dead and therefore the carbon content would be datable, and I was always under the impression things like sediments were dated by things like lead or uranium decay??

Furnuculus is the man to ask

Fossils are petrified, in most cases this means they can't be carbon dated because the original organic material has been replaced by some form of inorganic chemical. In any case, Carbon14 dating is quite unreliable because of the way it can fluctuate, so it is calibrated using dendrochonology, but it has now been discovered that trees can grow more than one ring a year, so that is also flawed and in any case dendro only goes back to about 3,000 BC, which is as far as history goes anyway. Lead and Uranium decay can also be contaminated if they are too closely associated with other minerals.

The point is, we don't know how old the Earth is, we just have evidence and ways of interpreting it. This is no different to Augustine, whose analysis of the available evidence (the historical record) was essentially correct, the Greeks were basically right and the Egyptions really quite wrong.

[Papewaio]

We can measure quite accurately several different Isotope ratios. Different half lives lend themselves to different clocks. The age if the Earth is well known. It's billions of years +/- millions. Not thousands.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There is something of a fallacy here, sediments are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by sedimentary layer. It's a closed loop. All the fossil record tells us is that life has had long enough to evolve, but not how long that has taken.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't old, I'm just making a point.

To a degree but you have to keep in mind that sedimentary layers are conveniently quite large and made by relatively simply physical processes which means you can do a lot of comparison with other samples of the same or other layers. This doesn't give you a reliable dating technique, but then again the sedimentary layer is only corroborating evidence for a dating or a ball park figure from where to start.

Also if you want an accurate measure of time based on radioactive decay, you want to try Caesium isotopes. These have a very regular and predictable decay pattern which is why they are used as atomic clocks. Furthermore there are other radioactive isotopes, again it is the multitude of samples which provides accuracy and not some technique applied to any individual sample.

It is precisely that flaw which makes carbon dating unreliable: the lack of valid samples to compare against.

[gaelic cowboy]

Fossils are petrified, in most cases this means they can't be carbon dated because the original organic material has been replaced by some form of inorganic chemical. In any case, Carbon14 dating is quite unreliable because of the way it can fluctuate, so it is calibrated using dendrochonology, but it has now been discovered that trees can grow more than one ring a year, so that is also flawed and in any case dendro only goes back to about 3,000 BC, which is as far as history goes anyway. Lead and Uranium decay can also be contaminated if they are too closely associated with other minerals.

The point is, we don't know how old the Earth is, we just have evidence and ways of interpreting it. This is no different to Augustine, whose analysis of the available evidence (the historical record) was essentially correct, the Greeks were basically right and the Egyptions really quite wrong.

Apparently Carbon 14 would be no use for Dinosaurs cos it would be all gone by the time we dig it up but fine for later ones.

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil" (http://snakefly.tripod.com/Date.html)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently Carbon 14 would be no use for Dinosaurs cos it would be all gone by the time we dig it up but fine for later ones.

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil" (http://snakefly.tripod.com/Date.html)

What that fails to mention though is contamination, irrc Lead207 can occur naturally, and there are ways that other radiometric tests can go squiffy, I think jet fumes can mess with Carbon14.

Anyway, my original point was fallability, nothing more.

[Papewaio]

In an effort to find summit on this I just googled this "How to Date a Fossil" (http://snakefly.tripod.com/Date.html)

Any authored by Wendy Deng or Hugh Hefner? :drummer:

=][=

As for fallability this is where it comes apparent that Science and Religion are playing different ball games. Its like a big tough American Football team turn up to play against their opponents absolutely certain in their victory, only to find its a water polo team and the playing field is water. This leads the football team to find all their armour drowns them in a pool of possibilities.

Science is only science whilst it is falliable. If a theory cannot be tested or have a chance to be proven wrong it is no longer science. All science comes with small print in the form of an error bar.

So in their game once you go from 99% confidence to 100% confidence that you are right, you are moving from fact to opinion.