Brainwashing? Christianity seems to be taking weird steps, here at least.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who suffered unjustly save God Himself?

Jesus and God are not exactly the same being, because Jesus has a human element as well. In any case many answers present themselves to you question:

In any case, your arguement about the gangster bribing the jury is horribly flawed and is an example of gross injustice, so in your own example the Poor Man suffers injustice. You need a much better example.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Jesus and God are not exactly the same being, because Jesus has a human element as well. In any case many answers present themselves to you question:

In any case, your arguement about the gangster bribing the jury is horribly flawed and is an example of gross injustice, so in your own example the Poor Man suffers injustice. You need a much better example.

I know it couldn't be a perfect example - because the gangster went unpunished, his sins were never payed for. The point in it was to focus on the poor murderer - did he suffer injustice? The example was not a broad comparison with salvation, the point was purely that the poor man did not suffer injustice.

The difference between this court case and salvation is that in the court case the judge is just a man. When it comes to salvation, God is the judge. The elect can't wriggle out of a sentence like the gangster (which is why I didn't intend for too much to be read into that side of the example). God judges us just like He judges everyone else, and the penalty for all would be the same. It is by mercy that any are saved, because Jesus suffered for the sins of the elect. Therfore, their sins were paid for just as those of anyone else.

If we somehow came to God by our own merits, how then could we possibly realise the fundamental Chrisitan beliefs, that are to humble ourselves before God and recognise our total iniquity in his sight, and the aboslute, total glory of his sacrifice on the cross in bringing us to salvation?

Plus there are other issues if you do not believe the doctrine of predestination. If you do not believe that the fates of people are sealed, then how do you account for chance? Some kid in the pre-colonial Amazon rainforest will not have the same chance of salvation as a child raised by Christian parents in a Christian country.

More broadly speaking, without going into the clearest inequalities, completely random chance would determine salvation if it was not for God's plan. That would mean that if people came to God, it would either be through the infuence of their upbringing, or perhaps some sort of inner righteousness. How then could they humble themselves before God as Christians are supposed to do?

If we are truly to open our hearts to God and beg him to reform us, then the only way this could be done is by realising we are absolutedly no better than any other human that has ever existed (apart from the human aspect of Jesus).

No other way would work, salvation has go to be perfect.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know it couldn't be a perfect example - because the gangster went unpunished, his sins were never payed for. The point in it was to focus on the poor murderer - did he suffer injustice? The example was not a broad comparison with salvation, the point was purely that the poor man did not suffer injustice.

Yes he did suffer injustice, because the system is broken and the law is not equal. A law which is just must be equal and unbiased.

The difference between this court case and salvation is that in the court case the judge is just a man. When it comes to salvation, God is the judge. The elect can't wriggle out of a sentence like the gangster (which is why I didn't intend for too much to be read into that side of the example). God judges us just like He judges everyone else, and the penalty for all would be the same. It is by mercy that any are saved, because Jesus suffered for the sins of the elect. Therfore, their sins were paid for just as those of anyone else.

You are positing a doctrine which makes God's absolute justice incompatable with his absolute mercy. Clearly something in the balance changes when you believe in God BUT that does not solve the fundamental problem with your doctrine.

Why send Jesus to begin with if Man does not deserve salvation? Why does God love man if man is evil?

The answer has to be that JUSTICE was served by sending Jesus, therefore hummanity deserves a chance at salvation for some, unknown reason. Since we are condemned for Adam's Sin one possibilty is that we do not bear the direct weight of that Sin as Adam did, or that Original Sin is not in itself a just reason to spend eternity in Hell.

In Genesis Adam, Noah and Abraham all talk to God, so are they in Heaven or Hell? Are they elect? They certainly aren't Christians, they have no concept of the incarnation as far as the text shows.

If we somehow came to God by our own merits, how then could we possibly realise the fundamental Chrisitan beliefs, that are to humble ourselves before God and recognise our total iniquity in his sight, and the aboslute, total glory of his sacrifice on the cross in bringing us to salvation?

What is the difference between deciding on Earth and deciding in Heaven, aren't both "on your own merits" really?

Plus there are other issues if you do not believe the doctrine of predestination. If you do not believe that the fates of people are sealed, then how do you account for chance? Some kid in the pre-colonial Amazon rainforest will not have the same chance of salvation as a child raised by Christian parents in a Christian country.

Yes its an issue, Calvinism sidesteps it so that the poor barbarians were born on the wrong side of the world and obviosly deserve to go to Hell for that. Just because I don't have answer, and I don't, doesn't mean your theoretical doctrine solves the problem.

More broadly speaking, without going into the clearest inequalities, completely random chance would determine salvation if it was not for God's plan. That would mean that if people came to God, it would either be through the infuence of their upbringing, or perhaps some sort of inner righteousness. How then could they humble themselves before God as Christians are supposed to do?

You limit God's Power again by assuming he is not able to make what seems unequal equal in reality. The world isn't fair as far as we can tell, so because it doesn't seem fair you assume that god is unable to provide a fair and equittable chance at salvation. I grew up in an atheistic family, the most devout confessing christian I have ever met grew up in the busom of the church.

If we are truly to open our hearts to God and beg him to reform us, then the only way this could be done is by realising we are absolutedly no better than any other human that has ever existed (apart from the human aspect of Jesus).

No other way would work, salvation has go to be perfect.

Yes it does, and it can't be if, all being equal before God, some are elected and others are not.

To be honest I think you're grappling with the basic problems all christians have and you hold to Calvinism because it systemises and justifies would would otherwise seem to be a deeply unfair world.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be honest, you are right, I am looking to find a reason why the world could be so unjust. Like yourself, I come from an atheist family, at times of the aggressive variety.

As you could probably tell from my preordination idea, I am desperate to discover the justice behind God's system. I do not see how it could lie in this earth where everything is created unequal - surely the life we know must just be the stage where fates determined in a just manner by God are acted out? Whether it stems from strict legalistic justice and individual responsibility (preordination), or from God Himself, granted 100%, with no rounding of numbers, through mercy (predestination).

My main problem has always been with how justice can be served on this earth if God does not intervene (without His intervention hinging on chance). It seems that to deny God's sovereignty in salvation is to deny the ultimate glory of salvation itself - an irresistable gift to people who are totally undeserving of it.

I have to say that I have always felt the guiding hand of fate myself, without it I cannot possibly conceive of myself coming to God. There's no influence from my family or surroundings. If Geneva was the most godly city on earth, the Scotland was the most godly nation - oh how things have changed.

Anyway, one night after I posted a question on the topic of predestination on the Christian forums I use, I was reading the Bible and started to pray for guidance on the topic, and then that song came into my head, maybe you know it, the one that goes "its got to be perfect", with some woman singing. And I knew that it was referring to my thought that for salvation to be ultimately glorious it must come purely from God. I swear I hadn't heard that song in years, nor thought about it, it just popped into my head when I asked God for guidance. Also it was incredibly clear normally songs in my head go horribly out of tune.

So that certainly made me think to inquire into Calvinism from a new point of view, and I think I have benefited in my understanding from doing that.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Great discussion I have to say, but I would like to ask one thing.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula: I'd like to point you to something you said just above...

You are positing a doctrine which makes God's absolute justice incompatable with his absolute mercy.

It was my understanding, although I could be wrong that God was supposed to be completely merciful, thus creating the paradox above. In fact Descartes, in trying to establish God's existence claims that God has all the perfections. Perfect Justice, perfect goodness, perfect power... etc... Despite the fact that many of these are incompatible.

Now I'm not obtuse enough to accept this argument (or rather reject any possibility of God's existence based on such a flawed argument), but it is clear that there is a problem. It seems that you are solving this by postulating that God is not totally good (and thus merciful), but instead perfectly just. This also would somewhat defeat the epicurean paradox (God cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing and totally good if there is evil). However I was under the impression that God was supposed to be perfectly good.

If 'Perfect Justice' is your overriding theory, although I'm not certain that it is (sorry if I've missed your point), then it still raises questions. What possible finite crime can be so bad as to deserve eternity in hell? Even the authors of genocide have only committed a finite crime, which cannot possibly justify infinite punishment. Thus if God is perfectly just, then everybody will be saved in the end. The alternative is to posit that there is an alternative to heaven and hell, which these redeemed souls would then inhabit, which is against any Christian doctrine that I know of.

There are other objections that I could raise but I don't have the time at the moment. Again my apologies if this is way off what you are actually saying.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Great discussion I have to say, but I would like to ask one thing.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula: I'd like to point you to something you said just above...



It was my understanding, although I could be wrong that God was supposed to be completely merciful, thus creating the paradox above. In fact Descartes, in trying to establish God's existence claims that God has all the perfections. Perfect Justice, perfect goodness, perfect power... etc... Despite the fact that many of these are incompatible.

Now I'm not obtuse enough to accept this argument (or rather reject any possibility of God's existence based on such a flawed argument), but it is clear that there is a problem. It seems that you are solving this by postulating that God is not totally good (and thus merciful), but instead perfectly just. This also would somewhat defeat the epicurean paradox (God cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing and totally good if there is evil). However I was under the impression that God was supposed to be perfectly good.

If 'Perfect Justice' is your overriding theory, although I'm not certain that it is (sorry if I've missed your point), then it still raises questions. What possible finite crime can be so bad as to deserve eternity in hell? Even the authors of genocide have only committed a finite crime, which cannot possibly justify infinite punishment. Thus if God is perfectly just, then everybody will be saved in the end. The alternative is to posit that there is an alternative to heaven and hell, which these redeemed souls would then inhabit, which is against any Christian doctrine that I know of.

There are other objections that I could raise but I don't have the time at the moment. Again my apologies if this is way off what you are actually saying.

Heh, you're not off what I'm saying but if you look back through the thread you'll see Love and Mercy, as well as Power, figure in exactly the same way as Justice.

Justice

Mercy

Love

Power

A doctrine which breaks any of those limits God in some way. Knowledge might be another one but it's a bit more difficult to qualify.

To be honest, you are right, I am looking to find a reason why the world could be so unjust. Like yourself, I come from an atheist family, at times of the aggressive variety.

As you could probably tell from my preordination idea, I am desperate to discover the justice behind God's system. I do not see how it could lie in this earth where everything is created unequal - surely the life we know must just be the stage where fates determined in a just manner by God are acted out? Whether it stems from strict legalistic justice and individual responsibility (preordination), or from God Himself, granted 100%, with no rounding of numbers, through mercy (predestination).

You will never find that Justice, not completely. Your perspective is limited, it's called being human and it's the same fault which I apply to all theologians, prophets and Apostles. You're in what might be called the "Bable" stage, trying to work out how it all works. You don't need to know that, you find out when you die. Trying to see God's puropse is also, I think, fairly pointless sometimes. What good will it do you, and how can you possibly comprehend the mind of God?

My main problem has always been with how justice can be served on this earth if God does not intervene (without His intervention hinging on chance). It seems that to deny God's sovereignty in salvation is to deny the ultimate glory of salvation itself - an irresistable gift to people who are totally undeserving of it.

No idea really, but god is Great and God is Good, so obviously it does. The Stoical position is that your perspective of reality is incorrect, and that there is no evil in the world, only evil thoughts. Seneca is the father of christian Stoicism, even though he was a Pagan. Look him up.

I have to say that I have always felt the guiding hand of fate myself, without it I cannot possibly conceive of myself coming to God. There's no influence from my family or surroundings. If Geneva was the most godly city on earth, the Scotland was the most godly nation - oh how things have changed.

Really? No influence? Where did you first encounter the Bible?

Anyway, one night after I posted a question on the topic of predestination on the Christian forums I use, I was reading the Bible and started to pray for guidance on the topic, and then that song came into my head, maybe you know it, the one that goes "its got to be perfect", with some woman singing. And I knew that it was referring to my thought that for salvation to be ultimately glorious it must come purely from God. I swear I hadn't heard that song in years, nor thought about it, it just popped into my head when I asked God for guidance. Also it was incredibly clear normally songs in my head go horribly out of tune.

So that certainly made me think to inquire into Calvinism from a new point of view, and I think I have benefited in my understanding from doing that.

Ok, well lets not bother with the issue of true visions, beyond saying that it has always been held that more visioins come from Satan than from God, and no vision in this period of history is absolute because there are not more prophets.

So, interpretation:

1. The Song was one you knew, and it came to you after a period of what I will assume was meditative prayer, rather than self flagalation.

2. That Salvation must be perfect is a given but, as I said "it comes from God" is a pointless statement, as everything comes from God.

3. assuming the words refer to salvation, why do you think this means you need to find the answer? Maybe it means the answer is perfect and therefore you won't find it on Earth, so stop worring about it and get on with life.

4. checked the lyrics? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.ha...airground.html Maybe Jesus thinks you should get a girlfriend.

5. It could mean you are concerned with Earthly matters in this and that you should think about this from a purely Godly point of view.

Those are just some ideas about interpretation. Be careful of statements like "I knew" and ask yourself whether you honestly do know or whether the idea just strikes a chord you really like.

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK, but I didn't say I accepted a doctrine based on that. I can tell it wasn't from Satan though. Far out as this may seem to ordinary Orgahs reading this post, when Satan sends thoughts they are better described as 'fiery arrows', they literally last a moment and they strike you when you are a Christian in the early stages. The devil's vain attempts to put us off track I suppose. I thought it only happened to me, but then when I joined the Christian forums I use apparently everyone has the exact same thing!

Of course we will never understand the mind of God, but He gave us the scriptures so that we could do our best to interpret them and live by them. I think it's important that I get some understanding of the message of the Bible, so that I don't spread a false message to others. I think I will need to look into the epicurean paradox... what are your thoughts on that PVC (or anyone else)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, but I didn't say I accepted a doctrine based on that. I can tell it wasn't from Satan though. Far out as this may seem to ordinary Orgahs reading this post, when Satan sends thoughts they are better described as 'fiery arrows', they literally last a moment and they strike you when you are a Christian in the early stages. The devil's vain attempts to put us off track I suppose. I thought it only happened to me, but then when I joined the Christian forums I use apparently everyone has the exact same thing!

Of course we will never understand the mind of God, but He gave us the scriptures so that we could do our best to interpret them and live by them. I think it's important that I get some understanding of the message of the Bible, so that I don't spread a false message to others. I think I will need to look into the epicurean paradox... what are your thoughts on that PVC (or anyone else)?

Epicurus is very simple.

Q: How can an all powerful and all loving God allow evil?

A1: He can't stop it, so he isn't all powerful, maybe he doesn't even exist.

A2: He chooses not to stop it, so he isn't all loving, so maybe he doesn't exist.

That's it.

Now, I hate to tell you this but your first paragraph is doctrinal again. It's based on Jesus' tempting in the wilderness. The problem though is that, as much as what you say might be true, that does not need to be the whole of the answer. There is a very long tradition of the Devil, or other demons, transfiguring themselves into angels of Light and decieving pious men (or women), prophecy, words of reasurence etc.

The line between mystic and heretic in the middle ages was a very fine one and whater you may have been told about old Catholicism (a lot of it isn't true, if your Church is anything like other Calvinistic ones) they took this issue very seriously, there is an abundance of literature on the subject.

You might want to start with the Cloud of Unkowing which is a meditative text but contains some chapters on false piety. some of it is nonsense, such as people with nervous twitches, or cracking joints, but a lot of what the author says about people burning with what they believe to be reightiour fire is worth thinking about.

In any case there are a lot of well documented cases of Churchmen who relate their own bizare experiences that have been variously interpreted as a supressed sex-drive or the works of demons. If you look at the early Church I don't think there are any grounds to think that a Baptised christin is inately protected, i.e. fenced off from, these sorts of experiences.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I get the impression you think my church gives some sort of hyper-Calvinist ant-Catholic Puritan fire and brimstone sermons. It's not like that, its all about getting along, John Knox would be spinning in his grave.

So do you not believe that God could be all powerful and all merciful? I was just thinking the other day that He would have to be all merciful to save even one soul. Which leaves the question over His power... that may be harder to answer, or at least explain why He allows evil to exist.

What you say about the devil is true I suppose. It just seems like an insult to God if I was to think He could be Satan in disguise.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

'God either wishes to take away evil, and is unable, or He is able and unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?'

The words of Epicurus in the 3rd century. I personally have not found an even halfway suitable refutation of this argument/paradox. The Free will argument limits his power in that God could create us to freely choose good over evil, and doesn't account for natural evils. Evil sevring a greater purpose makes no sense either. If God is all-merciful then he would spare us suffering. If He is all-good, then He would not create evil.

I feel that similarly, Justice, Love, Power and Mercy are incompatible, if you are indeed talking about them in absolutes. Perfect Justice would involve punishment, allowing for the existence of a place like hell. However Perfect Mercy would not allow for it, forcing God to absolve all people of their sins and allow them to ascend to heaven. Love and Justice are not totally contradictary, although there are some issues to work around. Or would you care to show me otherwise PVC?

With mysticism and heresy being similar, I was under the impression that heresy was essentially a warping of the church's take on Christianity. In other words someone offering their own interpretation on God and his words, without Church consent. A mystic then would be someone who was not accused of heresy by the church, presumably because their ideology did not conflict with the 'official' version.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

'God either wishes to take away evil, and is unable, or He is able and unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?'

The words of Epicurus in the 3rd century. I personally have not found an even halfway suitable refutation of this argument/paradox. The Free will argument limits his power in that God could create us to freely choose good over evil, and doesn't account for natural evils. Evil sevring a greater purpose makes no sense either. If God is all-merciful then he would spare us suffering. If He is all-good, then He would not create evil.

One possible refutatuion is that man's understanding of evil is faulty and that it exists only in the minds of men. This is most pertinant when considering natural evils, but it applies equally to Hitler and the Holocaust; the latter lead to modern notions of Human Rights and the UN as an international forum for dispute resolution.

I feel that similarly, Justice, Love, Power and Mercy are incompatible, if you are indeed talking about them in absolutes. Perfect Justice would involve punishment, allowing for the existence of a place like hell. However Perfect Mercy would not allow for it, forcing God to absolve all people of their sins and allow them to ascend to heaven. Love and Justice are not totally contradictary, although there are some issues to work around. Or would you care to show me otherwise PVC?

This is a paradox which has not been answered. One of the problems whith trying to answer it is that we do not know who is actually saved, another is that we do not actually see the hand of God. So, no I'm not going to refute the paradox here. However, I will reject any doctrine which creates such a paradox in itself. I believe Calvinism does just that.

With mysticism and heresy being similar, I was under the impression that heresy was essentially a warping of the church's take on Christianity. In other words someone offering their own interpretation on God and his words, without Church consent. A mystic then would be someone who was not accused of heresy by the church, presumably because their ideology did not conflict with the 'official' version.

Mystics have a direct line to God, and an individual interpretation, Heretics claim the same. There are examples of people burned as heretics who have since been restored to the Church. Joan of Arc is the most famous example.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I get the impression you think my church gives some sort of hyper-Calvinist ant-Catholic Puritan fire and brimstone sermons. It's not like that, its all about getting along, John Knox would be spinning in his grave.

No such thing as Hyper-Calvinism. It's a doctrine which contains election, and therefore contains God's damning of souls. A more fuzzy form of Calvinism can be achieved by limiting God's power. You've talked a lot about not believing in double pre-destination but, as I pointed out, this denies the binary of heaven-hell and God's all-powerful and irresitable nature which you proclaim.

As regards your Church, you have been taught that Roman Catholic Saints are somehow special in their relationship to God. This is anti-Roman Catholic invective (it's also anti-catholic, but that's another issue entirely). You've probably also been told that Roman priests are believed to have to some special power from God.

So do you not believe that God could be all powerful and all merciful? I was just thinking the other day that He would have to be all merciful to save even one soul. Which leaves the question over His power... that may be harder to answer, or at least explain why He allows evil to exist.

I would not be arguing with you if I did not believe he was all-powerful and all merciful. When I have time I'm going to write a tract on this and set out my objections systematically but if you look back over this thread you will see that I have ranged accross love, power, mercy and other elements of the Divine.

What you say about the devil is true I suppose. It just seems like an insult to God if I was to think He could be Satan in disguise.

You might think of it as an insult to God that you trust your own judgement so completely and are vain in your self assurence. (I must have read that somewhere, I don't write like that normally.)

Seriously though, if you're going to go in for the "fiery arrows" bit you need to take the "false angel" bit as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No such thing as Hyper-Calvinism. It's a doctrine which contains election, and therefore contains God's damning of souls. A more fuzzy form of Calvinism can be achieved by limiting God's power. You've talked a lot about not believing in double pre-destination but, as I pointed out, this denies the binary of heaven-hell and God's all-powerful and irresitable nature which you proclaim.

God never works in the lives of people to damn them, there's no need to, they'll do that themselves. He only ever works in people's lives to save them. Yes God created them, but it is purely the nature of their being that damns people, with no extra influence from God once they are created. Hyper-Calvinism suggests that there is, but this is incorrect.

As regards your Church, you have been taught that Roman Catholic Saints are somehow special in their relationship to God. This is anti-Roman Catholic invective (it's also anti-catholic, but that's another issue entirely). You've probably also been told that Roman priests are believed to have to some special power from God.

I'm pretty sure I didn't hear it at church, however no person/group of people on earth has the ability or right to say with absolute authority that any one person is in Heaven. And no I don't believe that anyone thinks priests are granted special powers from God, I've never heard anything on the matter. I would presume Catholics consider priests to be human just like the rest of us, and that the church hierarchy was mainly for practical rather than spiritual reasons. At least till you get to the top, then its dodgy.

I would not be arguing with you if I did not believe he was all-powerful and all merciful. When I have time I'm going to write a tract on this and set out my objections systematically but if you look back over this thread you will see that I have ranged accross love, power, mercy and other elements of the Divine.

I look forward to reading it, because it is a question I cannot answer myself.

You might think of it as an insult to God that you trust your own judgement so completely and are vain in your self assurence. (I must have read that somewhere, I don't write like that normally.)

Seriously though, if you're going to go in for the "fiery arrows" bit you need to take the "false angel" bit as well.

I thought that as well, that is would be wrong for me to be sure in anything that I felt. Human beings are completely inferior to the power of God and Satan, I know well that one could easily trick us into thinking he was the other. I just believe that when God gives us understanding, it lifts us to a level above doubt, when we know it cannot be Satan, because God lets us know. And I know it doesn't make sense when you look back reflecting on it (you think how can I have been sure it was God), but that is beause you're on a different level, its like you're looking straight across when what you just experienced was above you. You can never understand it except when you're there.

So I suppose I can never explain it properly.

[Ronin]

this thread is like a giant game of mad libs.

awesome!!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

God never works in the lives of people to damn them, there's no need to, they'll do that themselves. He only ever works in people's lives to save them. Yes God created them, but it is purely the nature of their being that damns people, with no extra influence from God once they are created. Hyper-Calvinism suggests that there is, but this is incorrect.

It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.

I'm pretty sure I didn't hear it at church, however no person/group of people on earth has the ability or right to say with absolute authority that any one person is in Heaven. And no I don't believe that anyone thinks priests are granted special powers from God, I've never heard anything on the matter. I would presume Catholics consider priests to be human just like the rest of us, and that the church hierarchy was mainly for practical rather than spiritual reasons. At least till you get to the top, then its dodgy.

Maybe it's these Christian forums you use. A lot of the rhetoric you use is very much in the vein of the Evangelical Churches.

Link?

I thought that as well, that is would be wrong for me to be sure in anything that I felt. Human beings are completely inferior to the power of God and Satan, I know well that one could easily trick us into thinking he was the other. I just believe that when God gives us understanding, it lifts us to a level above doubt, when we know it cannot be Satan, because God lets us know. And I know it doesn't make sense when you look back reflecting on it (you think how can I have been sure it was God), but that is beause you're on a different level, its like you're looking straight across when what you just experienced was above you. You can never understand it except when you're there.

So I suppose I can never explain it properly.

Satan is pretty pathetic really. I've reffered to it before, but read the Book of Job (all of it) for a demonstration od just how powerless he ultimately is. Having said that, consider this:

If you had been decieved you would still have written the same passage as the one I am quoting. How do you know that the assurence you feel is not false pride?

Faith in God is not the same as faith in yourself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Of course, we do not know why God created people who will be damned. However, the inevitability of events which arise as a result of the situation created by God do not equate to the predestination that Calvinist doctrine refers to. Calvinism only refers to one specific aspect of predestination - the certainty as shown throughout the Bible that God will not allow the elect to fail to come to salvation. The elect know that it is their purpose to come to salvation, but we do not know what the purpose of the others are - the Bible does not mention election to damnation as it does election to salvation, so we should consider why this is.

Maybe it's these Christian forums you use. A lot of the rhetoric you use is very much in the vein of the Evangelical Churches.

Link?

I'd rather keep the anonymity, however I will say that in a recent poll they held Arminianism received more votes than Calvinism when asked what the voter preferred.

Satan is pretty pathetic really. I've reffered to it before, but read the Book of Job (all of it) for a demonstration od just how powerless he ultimately is. Having said that, consider this:

If you had been decieved you would still have written the same passage as the one I am quoting. How do you know that the assurence you feel is not false pride?

Faith in God is not the same as faith in yourself.

It is a difficult issue, I know that. However, it seems that if God gives me understanding then it is well beyond anything my mind would be capable of itself. I don't see where pride in myself came into the equation though - if I've been tricked then its been out of my own stupidity and I've nothing to be proud about, if I've not then it came purely from God and so that's great - nowhere do I deserve any merit.

With a mind as small and powerless as my own, surely the only way I could tell between God and Satan is if God Himself gave me the necessary knowledge to know that? If it comes from God, to question it is to question God. How can I know it's from God? The only way is if He lets me know directly. Nowhere does my merit come into the equation.

Which ties into the larger idea of us being servants of God or slaves to Satan - so long as these greater powers are at work, how can we resist the one without shielding behind the other? Of course hiding behind Satan is foolish, since God will destroy him. Just not yet.

EDIT: Partly because of this thread, and also more generally, I decided earlier today that I would no longer think to much over the Calvinism/Arminianism/whatever denomination debate, and would instead focus on God Himself. So, I just hopped over to the forums, and the first topic, right at the top of the page, is on this precise topic! And I've never seen it come up before in my time there, is this coincidence... the answer is no because this kind of thing happens so often.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

One possible refutatuion is that man's understanding of evil is faulty and that it exists only in the minds of men. This is most pertinant when considering natural evils, but it applies equally to Hitler and the Holocaust; the latter lead to modern notions of Human Rights and the UN as an international forum for dispute resolution.

This is one of the strongest arguments against Epicurus, but I feel that there are still issues with it. To take your example of Hitler and the Holocaust. I was under the impression that the dignity of the human person (which I believe is first raised in Genesis) is a scriptural back-up to what most would agree to. It is is morally wrong, and thus evil, to take the life of another person. If you wished to argue that moral wrongness and evil are different, then insert the word innocent into the above statement. It is very hard to believe that God would approve of genocide, and if He did, then according to Epicurus, He is not God.

This is a paradox which has not been answered. One of the problems whith trying to answer it is that we do not know who is actually saved, another is that we do not actually see the hand of God. So, no I'm not going to refute the paradox here. However, I will reject any doctrine which creates such a paradox in itself. I believe Calvinism does just that.

I would be inclined to agree that Calvinism does create that paradox. And I agree that if Love, Justice, Mercy and Power were reconcilable, then in all probability it would be very hard to comprehend, given that, as you've said, we don't know who and who isn't saved.

No such thing as Hyper-Calvinism. It's a doctrine which contains election, and therefore contains God's damning of souls. A more fuzzy form of Calvinism can be achieved by limiting God's power. You've talked a lot about not believing in double pre-destination but, as I pointed out, this denies the binary of heaven-hell and God's all-powerful and irresitable nature which you proclaim.

If heaven and hell exist, and God is all-powerful, then God intended for hell to exist. Furthermore if God's power is irresistible then those who go to hell are those rejected by God, not those who reject Him, because they had no choice in the matter. In essence I agree that Calvinism must limit God's power or his goodness, and thus is an unsuitable doctrine.

I would not be arguing with you if I did not believe he was all-powerful and all merciful. When I have time I'm going to write a tract on this and set out my objections systematically but if you look back over this thread you will see that I have ranged accross love, power, mercy and other elements of the Divine.

I'd be interested...

It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.

This is a much more eloquent and logical way of putting what I said above. Furthermore I'd add that if He is all-powerful and irresistible and He works to save people then they will be saved, and thus there is no need for hell.

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Resisting God requires Free Will. Therefore to validate your situation above, God intended for people to resist him which leads to their damnation, thus leaving the same situation. Calvinism relys on a God who damns unjustly, or God is not all-powerful.

[Big_John]

walk away pever, walk away before it's too late.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

What about Lost souls (necessarily claimed by Satan?).

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Then God punishes the children ad extramis (I think that's the Latin) for the sins of the father? If Adam sinned why are we punished.

Set my give you a slightly different interpretation of Original Sin. God made Adam with Free Will, but not with judgement. Adam did not know right from wrong, only once he had tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did he know, then he tried to hide his Sin from God.

What Adam gave his children was understanding, and with that understanding came the weight of Sin because without it true disobedience to God is not possible.

Of course, we do not know why God created people who will be damned. However, the inevitability of events which arise as a result of the situation created by God do not equate to the predestination that Calvinist doctrine refers to. Calvinism only refers to one specific aspect of predestination - the certainty as shown throughout the Bible that God will not allow the elect to fail to come to salvation. The elect know that it is their purpose to come to salvation, but we do not know what the purpose of the others are - the Bible does not mention election to damnation as it does election to salvation, so we should consider why this is.

It might be because failure to elect to salvation is election to damnation.

I'd rather keep the anonymity, however I will say that in a recent poll they held Arminianism received more votes than Calvinism when asked what the voter preferred.

Fair enough, but I recognise the tone none the less. You're not a university student belonging to a CU, are you?

It is a difficult issue, I know that. However, it seems that if God gives me understanding then it is well beyond anything my mind would be capable of itself. I don't see where pride in myself came into the equation though - if I've been tricked then its been out of my own stupidity and I've nothing to be proud about, if I've not then it came purely from God and so that's great - nowhere do I deserve any merit.

Pride comes because you believe God has given you understanding above others. You have been elected to this understanding over and above the mass of hummanity.

With a mind as small and powerless as my own, surely the only way I could tell between God and Satan is if God Himself gave me the necessary knowledge to know that? If it comes from God, to question it is to question God. How can I know it's from God? The only way is if He lets me know directly. Nowhere does my merit come into the equation.

You still think you are chosen, that can be pride (I'm really not saying it is but it important to always remember.)

Which ties into the larger idea of us being servants of God or slaves to Satan - so long as these greater powers are at work, how can we resist the one without shielding behind the other? Of course hiding behind Satan is foolish, since God will destroy him. Just not yet.

God can shield you from Stan, but Satan cannot protect you from God, unless God allows it.

EDIT: Partly because of this thread, and also more generally, I decided earlier today that I would no longer think to much over the Calvinism/Arminianism/whatever denomination debate, and would instead focus on God Himself. So, I just hopped over to the forums, and the first topic, right at the top of the page, is on this precise topic! And I've never seen it come up before in my time there, is this coincidence... the answer is no because this kind of thing happens so often.

Saint Augustine said, "To say that God is ineffable should not be said, because then something is said (about that which is ineffable), this contradiction should be passed over in silence."

I think it's in either "City of God" or "On the Christian Doctrine"

He does go on to say you should try to talk about God, but your words will always be insufficient.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What about Lost souls (necessarily claimed by Satan?).

Then God punishes the children ad extramis (I think that's the Latin) for the sins of the father? If Adam sinned why are we punished.

Set my give you a slightly different interpretation of Original Sin. God made Adam with Free Will, but not with judgement. Adam did not know right from wrong, only once he had tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did he know, then he tried to hide his Sin from God.

What Adam gave his children was understanding, and with that understanding came the weight of Sin because without it true disobedience to God is not possible.

Even if you believe God gave Adam free will, He must have known that Adam would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It might be because failure to elect to salvation is election to damnation.

The nature of people might mean it has that effect, however people are not damned in the same manner in that they are saved.

Fair enough, but I recognise the tone none the less. You're not a university student belonging to a CU, are you?

I'm at Uni, though not in a CU (if that's Christian Union?), or any similar group.

Pride comes because you believe God has given you understanding above others. You have been elected to this understanding over and above the mass of hummanity.

You still think you are chosen, that can be pride (I'm really not saying it is but it important to always remember.)

And yet I do not deserve it, so I have no reason to be proud of myself. Was Moses proud or vain when He listened to God? Should he have thought Satan might be tricking him? If God wanted Moses to know who he was talking to, He would let him.

God can shield you from Stan, but Satan cannot protect you from God, unless God allows it.

True.

Saint Augustine said, "To say that God is ineffable should not be said, because then something is said (about that which is ineffable), this contradiction should be passed over in silence."

I think it's in either "City of God" or "On the Christian Doctrine"

He does go on to say you should try to talk about God, but your words will always be insufficient.

True. Perhaps all our discussions are irrelevant because of this. No doctrine we can come up with can truly help us to understand God. However it comes about, at least we both agree you need to have faith, and I suppose that's what matters in the end.

[pevergreen]

walk away pever, walk away before it's too late.

I got bored and I stopped. Never fear.

I do like the discussion it has spawned though.

[Sigurd]

I got bored and I stopped. Never fear.

I do like the discussion it has spawned though.

Any follow up story on this one pever?

Also, I had a discussion this weekend with a Born again Lutheran on the infallibility of the Bible which coincidently involved Rhyfelwyr's quoted scripture.

Is it getting close? It seems there is a certain awakening in the Christian movement everywhere.

[pevergreen]

Oh yes!

They both decided to delete me as friends on facebook and they refuse to talk to me, not because they know this, but because they are now going out!

So according to their own beliefs, they are obviously soon to be married

("they" being the lady and the boy who converted her in the first place, who when questioned, said he had no intention of going out with her. We all knew it was a lie )

In terms of Christianity, i still dont think it can work until it falls beneath a single umbrella, with a single head, but still allow the different denominations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh yes!

They both decided to delete me as friends on facebook and they refuse to talk to me, not because they know this, but because they are now going out!

So according to their own beliefs, they are obviously soon to be married

("they" being the lady and the boy who converted her in the first place, who when questioned, said he had no intention of going out with her. We all knew it was a lie )

In terms of Christianity, i still dont think it can work until it falls beneath a single umbrella, with a single head, but still allow the different denominations.

So the guy used Christianity to get a girl to dump her boyfriend and then asked her out?

Oh man, oh man.

[pevergreen]

We knew for some time it was going to happen. A lot of people want to hit him. Hard.

Sarathos is over it anyway.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We knew for some time it was going to happen. A lot of people want to hit him. Hard.

Sarathos is over it anyway.

I always thought these dramas that are associated with Aussies were just based on stereotypes from soaps like Neighbours, however with some of the stories I've heard from your circle of Orgah friends I'm begging to wonder if they have some foundations...

[HoreTore]

We knew for some time it was going to happen. A lot of people want to hit him. Hard.

Sarathos is over it anyway.

Bah. Puppy love. Who cares?

And they're christians, they get all the drawbacks of a relationship but without the benefit(teh sex), so.... I feel rather sorry for them

[Sigurd]

They both decided to delete me as friends on facebook and they refuse to talk to me, not because they know this, but because they are now going out!

So ... they don't know your interest was fake but then just dump you out of ... spite? Your connection to Sarathos?

So according to their own beliefs, they are obviously soon to be married

("they" being the lady and the boy who converted her in the first place, who when questioned, said he had no intention of going out with her. We all knew it was a lie )

Man ... If I had still lived in Brisbane, I might have offered to "talk" to them.
But ya never know. He wanted her over to this ... ( can't exactly call it extreme form of Christianity ) to get the woman of his dreams. She might as well have been lured in to get the boy of her dreams.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hang on a second... are you telling me i can use religion to pull ?!

Time to start brushing up on my bible studies!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah. Puppy love. Who cares?

And they're christians, they get all the drawbacks of a relationship but without the benefit(teh sex), so.... I feel rather sorry for them

Yes, we know you are a nhilist who hates God.

So ... they don't know your interest was fake but then just dump you out of ... spite? Your connection to Sarathos?


Man ... If I had still lived in Brisbane, I might have offered to "talk" to them.
But ya never know. He wanted her over to this ... ( can't exactly call it extreme form of Christianity ) to get the woman of his dreams. She might as well have been lured in to get the boy of her dreams.

This is something that deserves it's own topic really, faith and human relationships. Personally, I can't imagine how you can have an intimate relationship with someone who has a completely different world view to you, not to mention the potential salvation/damnation issue.