What's the problem?

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Sozo

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. "

There is much to be said concerning these verses, but one main point is clear, God has made Himself known. That He saves you (gives you His life), and then you believe.

I remember that scripture. Thanks for that. That was what I thought was meant by your previous post.

 

[SOTK]

Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

SOTK,

As has been pointed out already Calvinism makes God out to be an unjust stone idol. Of course they would never use those terms but I believe they are accurate nonetheless.
As to the theology of Calvinism itself, it can most easily be shown to be false by examining the presuppositions which lead to the conclusions that Calvin made when formulating his theology, the main one of which is the idea that God is immutable. Calvin believed that God was utterly and totally and absolutely immutable in every conceivably possible way, as did Luther before him, and Augustine before him, and Plato before him!
Bob Hill has written many articles on the subject of Calvinism. The one entitled The Immutability of God is an excellent one to start with. You can go here for a terrific list of articles all about Calvinism with Biblical arguments as to why it simply cannot be true.

I hope you take the time to read at least that first article I linked to and will look forward to your response!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks, Clete. I will definitely check it out. I have read a few articles on the Defense of Calvinism.....one was by some Pastor who was attached to a General during the Civil War I believe (I forget his name). I've also read a little bit from Calvin himself and started reading some stuff on Arminianism (sp?). I look forward to checking out your link. Thanks.

In Christ,

SOTK

 

[Clete]

Time is not a thing or a place that can be existed outside of. Time is an idea, a frame of reference which thinking minds use to reference sequence and duration and other related concepts. If God does one thing and then later does another thing, that which transpired during and inbetween those events is what we call time.

 

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Time is not a thing or a place that cna be existed outside of. Time is an idea, a frame of reference which thinking minds use to reference sequence and duration and other related concepts. If God does one thing and then later does another thing, that which transpired during and inbetween those events is what we call time.

And to think otherwise is such a widespread misconception. I am arguing with atheists on another forum, and things like that are bandied about to argue how God cannot have emotions, or change His mind, or be compassionate, etc. I spend more time explaining doctrine than anything. What a waste of time! But if I back out now, they will think that they drove me off. *sigh*

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by SOTK
I realize that this isn't the complete view of Calvinistic pre-destination, but just given this aspect, how can the future be closed at all?

The Calvinist argument is that God decreed in advance every aspect of all of time (including the future of course).

From the smallest events to the largest events, all events are decreed by God to happen in just the way they happen. And therefore the future is closed in that nothing happens that wasn't decreed exhaustively by God.

 

[godrulz]

This thread has more light than heat. Keep up the good work.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Time is not a thing or a place that can be existed outside of. Time is an idea, a frame of reference which thinking minds use to reference sequence and duration and other related concepts. If God does one thing and then later does another thing, that which transpired during and inbetween those events is what we call time.

Well said Clete!

To try and say that God is outside of time and space, would also be to say that He is outside of movement. We know that is not true.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by godrulz

This thread has more light than heat. Keep up the good work.

You had to go and jinx it! :doh:

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Time is not a thing or a place that can be existed outside of. Time is an idea, a frame of reference which thinking minds use to reference sequence and duration and other related concepts. If God does one thing and then later does another thing, that which transpired during and inbetween those events is what we call time.

That's fine to say that Time is an idea and doesn't exist in the way that we apply the meaning of the word 'Time', however, in the way that we (humans) understand or have applied our meaning of the word 'Time', it wouldn't apply to God, correct? Hence, the phrase "He exists outside of it". There is no time for Him. :think:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by SOTK

That's fine to say that Time is an idea and doesn't exist in the way that we apply the meaning of the word 'Time', however, in the way that we (humans) understand or have applied our meaning of the word 'Time', it wouldn't apply to God, correct? Hence, the phrase "He exists outside of it". There is no time for Him. :think:

Time is not a thing. The measurement of time varies. Time is an aspect of any personal being's existence. Thinking, acting, feeling, etc. all require time. "Eternal now" is a false philosophical concept that was adopted by Augustine and others. Time is simply succession, sequence, duration. The reality of time is not a limitation for God, but it is limiting for us (we cannot be in two places at the same time; we can only do so much in any given time interval, etc.). This does not mean God is outside of it or does not experience it. Eternity is not timelessness (this is incoherent), but is an endless duration of time with no beginning and no end. Time is not space. He cannot exist 'outside' of it.

The past, present, and future is reality for man and God (Hebraic view shows God experiencing history). The difference is that God is omnipresent and has a greater present experience than finite humans. He also knows the past and present perfectly. The future is not yet, so He is not 'there' and it is only known as a possibility rather than an actuality/certainty before it happens (some of the future that God determines is settled...e.g. Revelation judgments and the Second Coming and Millennial Kingdom).

 

[Hilston]

Godrulz,

Does modus ponens exist?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Godrulz,

Does modus ponens exist?

For those of us who don't speak Hilstonese or Latin...

Modus ponens

The form of argument exists yes. What's the point exactly?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Godrulz,

Does modus ponens exist?

Hey guys....

Let's not get off topic for SOTK. This thread is for him to ask questions and get answers so if you have something to add for him that's great but I ask that you not get in side discussions in this thread.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Hilston

Godrulz,

Does modus ponens exist?

Yes. Inductive study> deductive study; exegesis vs eisegesis. Modal logic is relevant for our discussions about necessity, contingency, certainties/actualities. This technical field is beyond our expertise, so let us be careful that we know our academic limitations.

 

[Hilston]

Knight writes: Hey guys....

Let's not get off topic for SOTK. This thread is for him to ask questions and get answers so if you have something to add for him that's great but I ask that you not get in side discussions in this thread.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation!

Translation:Hey guys....

Let's not get off topic for SOTK. This thread is for him to ask questions and get the Open Theist demonization of a theology that none of us understands, including those of us who boast long histories within that theology. If you have something to add to our gross mischaracterizations and distortions of something as irrationally hated as George W. by Kerry-lovers, that's great, but I ask that you not get in anything that is even remotely close to an accurate representation of Calvinism in this thread.

Thanks in advance for your sniveling obsequious sycophantic bootlicking obscurantist compliance.

Cheers,
The Most Holy Father Vicar of Christ Right Reverend Monsignor Pope Hilston, Th.D., Ph.D., LMNOP

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Translation:Hey guys....

Let's not get off topic for SOTK. This thread is for him to ask questions and get the Open Theist demonization of a theology that none of us understands, including those of us who boast long histories within that theology. If you have something to add to our gross mischaracterizations and distortions of something as irrationally hated as George W. by Kerry-lovers, that's great, but I ask that you not get in anything that is even remotely close to an accurate representation of Calvinism in this thread.

Thanks in advance for your sniveling obsequious sycophantic bootlicking obscurantist compliance.

Cheers,
The Most Holy Father Vicar of Christ Right Reverend Monsignor Pope Hilston, Th.D., Ph.D., LMNOP

:madmad: Jim if you want to respond to SOTK have at it! I didn't say this thread was only for OV'ers I simply stated I started this thread for SOTK and not for side discussions etc.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

I have a feeling I know where you a going with such a enigmatic question. Please answer my question, why did you ask whether modus ponens exists? And for Knight's sake, please answer in such a way that the relevance to the topic of the thread is clear to all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Clete,

My question was for Godrulz. He answered it. I'm satisfied. It wasn't enigmatic. It was simple curiosity.

As to its relevance, it has to do with whether or not time revisionists believe in the actual existence of abstract entities.

Henceforth, I will ask such questions in PM or start a new thread, since one never knows what is going to cause a moderator to have flare-up.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston
Henceforth, I will ask such questions in PM or start a new thread, since one never knows what is going to cause a moderator to have flare-up.

Ya know... Jim... you are a jerk. You prove it over and over again.

Plain and simple! I try my best to befriend you and be brotherly to you but its imposible.

My request to honor SOTK's thread wasn't a "flare up" it was just a friendly request! I would have (and have in the past) made the same request of anyone.

My only conclusion is that you suffer from "jerk-itis".

 

[Hilston]

Knight writes:
Ya know... Jim... you are a jerk. You prove it over and over again.

It's the jerkitis, one of my environmental allergies.

Knight writes:
Plain and simple! I try my best to befriend you and be brotherly to you but its imposible.

While it warms my heart that you would say so, I know better than to invest any further emotion or hold out any hope for sincerity. You're the king of the double standard. I don't doubt that you're mostly fair, especially when it's politically expedient. But you've gone out of your way to call me unfriendly and unchristian for the very. same. things. that you and your cronies do all the time. I tried repeatedly to express those concerns and to get clarification from you in PMs, but you ignored my questions, dismissed my concerns, and kept right on ranting. I still have those PMs. Would you like to re-read them?

Knight writes:
My request to honor SOTK's thread wasn't a "flare up" it was just a friendly request!

The best thing you and your co-demonizers could do to honor SOTK's request is take the time (i.e. care enough) to learn what you're talking about. But the bottom line is: You don't care. I don't doubt that you will probably succeed in turning SOTK away from your understanding of Calvinism, but he will never know, unless he reads it for himself, what Calvinism actually teaches. Chances are he will just become a clone of you, caring even less to properly define and understand the arguments, ever learning but never able to come to the epignosis of the truth.

Knight writes:
I would have (and have in the past) made the same request of anyone.

I don't doubt it for a second. But you reserve "unchristian" and "unfriendly" for yours truly.

Knight writes:
My only conclusion is that you suffer from "jerk-itis".

It's true. It's an environmental condition I have that flares up whenever I catch a whiff of blatant irrationality, careless mischaracterization and abject obscurantism.