Check out the website. And for someone who depends on the Bible and Scripture, how do you reconcile this?10andBOUNCE said:
That is one long Calvinist hit piece, lol. TLDR.
You might like this one better.10andBOUNCE said:
I scrolled through until my thumb got sore; didn't see much scripture in that link.
Derm, thanks for sharing this. I have made my way through a portion of it and will continue reading, but I am struck by this paragraph from the beginning:dermdoc said:
This is great stuff.
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-6-whats-at-stake-the-character-of-god-and-the-truth-of-the-gospel/
Please understand when I say this I am not trying to be polemical, but when I read this I find myself saying "yes, AMEN!" and this SCREAMS about the need for an ultimate, infallibile interpreter of scripture? With all the intellectual honesty I can muster, I don't see how it is possible to get around this. Otherwise, it truly is every man and his Bible his own Pope. Isn't this article making the case against sola scriptura? Aren't we staring at the fruits of sola scriptura when we read the divergence of understanding between Calvinists and others? Millions of honest, very smart, well-intended Christians of good faith arriving at vastly different understandings of critical matters to the life of a Christian while looking solely to the Bible as the ulitmate rule of faith?Quote:
Therefore this intellectual and theological relativism just won't do. Two mutually exclusive views on soteriology, the nature of God and the gospel message cannot both be true. It doesn't hold intellectually and it doesn't comport with the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Scriptures do not testify to inconsistent or contradictory "truths."
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Derm, thanks for sharing this. I have made my way through a portion of it and will continue reading, but I am struck by this paragraph from the beginning:dermdoc said:
This is great stuff.
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-6-whats-at-stake-the-character-of-god-and-the-truth-of-the-gospel/Please understand when I say this I am not trying to be polemical, but when I read this I find myself saying "yes, AMEN!" and this SCREAMS about the need for an ultimate, infallibile interpreter of scripture? With all the intellectual honesty I can muster, I don't see how it is possible to get around this. Otherwise, it truly is every man and his Bible his own Pope. Isn't this article making the case against sola scriptura? Aren't we staring at the fruits of sola scriptura when we read the divergence of understanding between Calvinists and others? Millions of honest, very smart, well-intended Christians of good faith arriving at vastly different understandings of critical matters to the life of a Christian while looking solely to the Bible as the ulitmate rule of faith?Quote:
Therefore this intellectual and theological relativism just won't do. Two mutually exclusive views on soteriology, the nature of God and the gospel message cannot both be true. It doesn't hold intellectually and it doesn't comport with the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Scriptures do not testify to inconsistent or contradictory "truths."
Sorry if this derails your otherwise thought-provoking post. I am going to keep reading it to broaden my understanding.
And this is my favorite. William Lane Craig is no lightweightFTACo88-FDT24dad said:
I agree.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Derm, thanks for sharing this. I have made my way through a portion of it and will continue reading, but I am struck by this paragraph from the beginning:dermdoc said:
This is great stuff.
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-6-whats-at-stake-the-character-of-god-and-the-truth-of-the-gospel/Please understand when I say this I am not trying to be polemical, but when I read this I find myself saying "yes, AMEN!" and this SCREAMS about the need for an ultimate, infallibile interpreter of scripture? With all the intellectual honesty I can muster, I don't see how it is possible to get around this. Otherwise, it truly is every man and his Bible his own Pope. Isn't this article making the case against sola scriptura? Aren't we staring at the fruits of sola scriptura when we read the divergence of understanding between Calvinists and others? Millions of honest, very smart, well-intended Christians of good faith arriving at vastly different understandings of critical matters to the life of a Christian while looking solely to the Bible as the ulitmate rule of faith?Quote:
Therefore this intellectual and theological relativism just won't do. Two mutually exclusive views on soteriology, the nature of God and the gospel message cannot both be true. It doesn't hold intellectually and it doesn't comport with the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Scriptures do not testify to inconsistent or contradictory "truths."
Sorry if this derails your otherwise thought-provoking post. I am going to keep reading it to broaden my understanding.
dermdoc said:
Makes God into a moral monster.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:dermdoc said:
Makes God into a moral monster.
Another quote from chapter 4 that I thought was noteworthy is the one where he questioned whether the God of Calvinists is actually the God of the gospel. Straight to the heart of the matter.
Sorry I am boring you.10andBOUNCE said:
If somebody creates something only for eternal torment that is the definition of monster to me. Guess we are different.10andBOUNCE said:
Ha! Not necessarily bored. I'm not going to go and read all the literature at this time.
And the kind of gaslighting or implications that reformed thinking leads to the only conclusion of God being a "monster."
10andBOUNCE said:
I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.
If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.
I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through
dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:
I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.
If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.
I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through
That is good stuff. The early church had great thoughts. Lots more hints of universal reconciliation and less ECT hell from my readings. Much different than the Western church which is basically all Augustine.
I love that stuff.
And it is great for me to get out of my "bubble".
Oh and I read really fast.
I like that. Thanks. Salvation is now and in the past and tomorrow. It is not just a means of going to "heaven".FTACo88-FDT24dad said:dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:
I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.
If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.
I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through
That is good stuff. The early church had great thoughts. Lots more hints of universal reconciliation and less ECT hell from my readings. Much different than the Western church which is basically all Augustine.
I love that stuff.
And it is great for me to get out of my "bubble".
Oh and I read really fast.
@derm, I have been reading and thinking about the article you shared. It's very thought-provoking. Right, wrong, or otherwise, I am struck by the observation that the nature of freedom is at the very core of this subject. The question my Catholic mind is disposed to ask about the nature of freedom is "Is freedom a share or participation in the Divine Life?" I am inspired to ask this question because while reading the article I realized that only God is truly free in the ultimate sense of the word, but as with other divine attributes, we can share or partake in those divine attributes if God wills to share them with us. As those arguig against Calvinism in the article suggest, God can ordain a world where he wills that men are truly free to make choices and when men do so they are actually doing so by God's will. But that's the bare minimum.
Freedom, in the Catholic understanding, is indeed a share in God's divine life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that true freedom is found in living according to God's will and in communion with Him (CCC 1731-1733). But this freedom is not merely the ability to choose, but the capacity to choose the good, which aligns with God's divine nature. In John 8:32, Jesus says, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," indicating that true freedom is found in the truth of God. Through grace, especially received in the sacraments, we participate in God's life, which is the ultimate freedom from sin and death (Romans 6:22-23). As St. Peter tells us
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; (2 Peter 1:3-10, RSV-CE)
dermdoc said:I like that. Thanks. Salvation is now and in the past and tomorrow. It is not just a means of going to "heaven".FTACo88-FDT24dad said:dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:
I apologize it comes off as brushing off but the length of these resources are substantial.
If there was a shorter section I could focus on specifically I'd happily do that.
I'm just kind of engrossed currently in the early church stuff I've been going through
That is good stuff. The early church had great thoughts. Lots more hints of universal reconciliation and less ECT hell from my readings. Much different than the Western church which is basically all Augustine.
I love that stuff.
And it is great for me to get out of my "bubble".
Oh and I read really fast.
@derm, I have been reading and thinking about the article you shared. It's very thought-provoking. Right, wrong, or otherwise, I am struck by the observation that the nature of freedom is at the very core of this subject. The question my Catholic mind is disposed to ask about the nature of freedom is "Is freedom a share or participation in the Divine Life?" I am inspired to ask this question because while reading the article I realized that only God is truly free in the ultimate sense of the word, but as with other divine attributes, we can share or partake in those divine attributes if God wills to share them with us. As those arguig against Calvinism in the article suggest, God can ordain a world where he wills that men are truly free to make choices and when men do so they are actually doing so by God's will. But that's the bare minimum.
Freedom, in the Catholic understanding, is indeed a share in God's divine life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that true freedom is found in living according to God's will and in communion with Him (CCC 1731-1733). But this freedom is not merely the ability to choose, but the capacity to choose the good, which aligns with God's divine nature. In John 8:32, Jesus says, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," indicating that true freedom is found in the truth of God. Through grace, especially received in the sacraments, we participate in God's life, which is the ultimate freedom from sin and death (Romans 6:22-23). As St. Peter tells us
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; (2 Peter 1:3-10, RSV-CE)
It is being born again and changed. Now.
Compare New Testament evangelism with what is Western evangelism today and in the past. Night and day difference.
I do not know what happened, but it did.
Derm, I commend this article on Maximus the Confessor to you for your enjoyment and possibly some edification.dermdoc said:
It really is exciting and fulfilling.
Great read. Fits my present idea of salvation.FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Derm, I commend this article on Maximus the Confessor to you for your enjoyment and possibly some edification.dermdoc said:
It really is exciting and fulfilling.
https://fatherirenaeuswilliams.com/2024/01/25/st-maximus-the-confessor-christology-and-the-salvific-model-of-theosis/
Thanks. I could be mistaken, but is it true that WLC agrees with monothelitism? If so, the statement below might explain why. If true I don't think it in any way undermines his critique of Calvinism.dermdoc said:
https://goodnewsapologetics.com/chapter-4-why-the-calvinist-views-of-sovereignty-and-salvation-are-certainly-false/
Just re read this and it is so good.
Quote:
Any interpretation of Scripture that claims to be valid has to be able to coherently account for all the biblical data, in this case, divine sovereignty on the one hand and contingency, human freedom and responsibility on the other. A valid interpretation of each must provide coherence between them. Incoherence declared a mystery so as to maintain one's interpretation is not an option.
dermdoc said:
One of his arguments is that Calvinism makes God the author of sin. Powerful stuff.
Might want to read his argument. It is pretty compelling if you10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:
One of his arguments is that Calvinism makes God the author of sin. Powerful stuff.
That is fine to say, but the fact of the matter is that God being the author of sin is not part of reformed theology and is completely rejected.
It is his third point in the attached link. The whole link is really not that long if you have the time.10andBOUNCE said:
If you can point me to a certain section I will try to do so.
I am not disputing that the argument isn't real, but just because someone argues or makes a case doesn't necessarily mean anything. If that is the outcome of the argument, it is 100% rejected. God is not the author of sin.
And it probably depends on what you consider evil or a sin.10andBOUNCE said:
If you can point me to a certain section I will try to do so.
I am not disputing that the argument isn't real, but just because someone argues or makes a case doesn't necessarily mean anything. If that is the outcome of the argument, it is 100% rejected. God is not the author of sin.
Quote:
By the same token, all human responsibility for sin is removed on this view because our choices are not really up to us. God causes us to make them. So we can't be responsible for our choices because nothing that we think or do is up to us.
