The Foreknowledge of "I AM"

OldPaths ^ | T. Pierce Brown

[drstevej]

Bambi Killer!

[xzins]

Do you prefer pepper jerky or smoked?

9 out of 10 Peta activists prefer pepper. Me....I like smoked.

Nobody was saying , "Poor Steve" when Bambi was ravaging his garden this past summer. Bambi ate about as much of the corn as I did. AND....and this is the clincher....AND....Bambi would take ONE BITE out of a green tomato and then move on!

"Look on the fields, they are White-Tail ready to harvest...."

[drstevej]

OK, you convinced me. Hand me the gun and I'l blast that tomato nibbler!

[xzins]

That gun....wife got it for me for Christmas. A very nice muzzle loader. It took me about 23 rounds to zero it, but I did a good job of it.

Got the little critter right through the heart from about 65-70 yards.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I have a question.

The Calvinists and freewill all start out with the bible as their authority, but come to very extreme sides.

Everyone has their source's that help them come to that extreme side, that they are the correct one. And of course EVERYONE has the correct source.

So the question is, how do we REALLY, AND I MEAN "REALLY" trust ANY of these source's?

History, Grammar, Theology, commentaries, Different Bibles?

Thanks for any answers.

BigMack

[Dr Warmoose]

So the question is, how do we REALLY, AND I MEAN "REALLY" trust ANY of these source's?

It really doesn't matter at the end. A person can believe anything they want (except Mormonism and Jehovah Witness) and as long as they claim they are a Christian, then they are. A Pelagian soteriology or a Calvinist soteriology are equally valid and God really doesn't care what a person believes.

We just like to argue.

[Revelation 911]

It really doesn't matter at the end. A person can believe anything they want (except Mormonism and Jehovah Witness) and as long as they claim they are a Christian, then they are. A Pelagian soteriology or a Calvinist soteriology are equally valid and God really doesn't care what a person believes.

We just like to argue.

.....no.........you guys just like to argue LOL

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

So the question is, how do we REALLY, AND I MEAN "REALLY" trust ANY of these source's?

History, Grammar, Theology, commentaries, Different Bibles?

Thanks for any answers.

Well Mack, i suppose that the best answer is found from the pages of scripture itself, and on this particular, both Calvinist and Arminian are in agreement.

15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16) But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

II Timothy 2:15-16 KJV

Hope that answers the question, cause that's about as good as i can give you...trust no one except God, and check everything.

[Dr Warmoose]

...trust no one except God, and check everything.

One soteriology says that man is spiritually dead and needs to be brought to life. The other soteriology says that man is sick and needs to heal himself. They both can't be true, or we must accept the concept of what may be true for you may not be true for me.

Ultimately, what you are saying is that all of the writings outside of the apostolic writings are junk, worthless, and merely curiosities for the bored. We can no longer stand on the shoulders of the great theologians, but must suspect every one of them as a tool of Satan to deceive.

Nothing like setting back the Church two thousand years.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Nobody was saying , "Poor Steve" when Bambi was ravaging his garden this past summer. Bambi ate about as much of the corn as I did. AND....and this is the clincher....AND....Bambi would take ONE BITE out of a green tomato and then move on!

You know xzinsmeister, Here in Pennsylvania you could have blown the varmits to kingdom come, in or out of season under those circumstances...and your freezer would already be filled with vegtable fed deer meat.

[xzins]

PayNO, I think the bible is clear that we need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Sources help. But I'm continually amazed at the depth and breadth of knowledge of the bible of the bible-era saints and those in the Church who followed them on up to the time of the "helps" making the scene.

[xzins]

In Ohio we can blow them away in non-season, but we have to let them lay for the buzzards. Honestly, we can bag 'em UNLESS they hit your car. (Sort of a dent-master consolation prize I reckon. :>) (Maybe we can send them to the Children's Home. I'm not sure about that one.)

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Ultimately, what you are saying is that all of the writings outside of the apostolic writings are junk, worthless, and merely curiosities for the bored. We can no longer stand on the shoulders of the great theologians, but must suspect every one of them as a tool of Satan to deceive.

Ok Moose, you disappoint me, i thought you read better than this. At no time and no place in the post you quote in part did i either state or insinuate that all non inspired writings are worthless...and you know it.

IIRC i told Big Mack to check everything, which is sound advice.M

Luther did not have access to GRAMCORD software, and neither did A.T. Robertson. It is best to check the work in light of what is known by...you guessed it, both scripture and subsequent reseach.

You don't by any chance STILL believe in spontaneous generation do you?

[Dr Warmoose]

You don't by any chance STILL believe in spontaneous generation do you?

I have had an ephiphany of sorts, and in light of all that has happened in the last twenty minutes, I have had a life altering experience. I no longer worry about doctrine, nor care to even question any person's feeling of what truth they have made for themselves.

Everyone is correct while everyone is also mistaken. Truth is what we want it to be, and what works best for us. It no longer matters what anyone feels about "spontaneous generation" (whatever that is) for in the end, we all will be together in glory.

I now just bask in the light and love of Jesus.

I love you. Pass it on.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

I love you. Pass it on.

Bite me! i think i perfer it when you're kicking @$$ and taking names. i don't do cute.

[Dr Warmoose]

Bite me! i think i perfer it when you're kicking @$$ and taking names. i don't do cute.

My soul grieves by your harsh and unloving words. You must be in some sort of pain.... I feel your pain, and must go to the prayer closet to seek the LORD.

I need a tissue.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

My soul grieves by your harsh and unloving words. You must be in some sort of pain.... I feel your pain, and must go to the prayer closet to seek the LORD.

You need to cut back on the Prozac tough guy.

[Jean Chauvin]

My honest (no insult intended) belief is that Arminianism interprets the Bible in the light of philosophical rationalism.

As a case in point, look at Post #458 of the "How To Be Born Again" thread:

"In a nutshell, I cannot reconcile that God fordained/predestined every sin committed by every man while also maintaining that man is responsible for all his sins."

Now, it is precisely this position that the Calvinist holds. You might call it a paradox or you might call it contradictory. Nevertheless, this is precisely what we believe that the Scripture teaches.

The two most common examples are Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23.

In Genesis 50:20, we see that Joseph tells his brothers that God brought him into slavery and Egypt (and it was good) while his brothers brought him into slavery and into Egypt (and it was evil). It is rather clear that God indeed ordained these events to transpire while at the very same time his brothers were morally responsible for their evil deeds.

In Acts 2:23, we see that Peter addresses the people of Jerusalem and tells them that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pre-ordained. Yet, at the very same time, Peter tells the crowd that it was "wicked hands" that murdered Jesus. It is rather clear that this is another situation were the people that carried out the murder of Jesus were responsible for their sin even though God had pre-ordained all the events of the cross.

Now, the poster quoted above has already admitted he cannot accept such a interpretation. This is what I mean when I say that Arminians interpret their Scripture in the light of philosophical rationalism.

In other words, a specific interpretation must be rational without logical conflict in order for it to be true.

When pressed on these passages, the FR Arminians have given me several different re-interpretations of Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23.

Consistent with all the answers I get is that the correct interpretation cannot possibly be that God has pre-ordained these events and at the same time the people who carried out these events were responsible. They all unanimously have rejected that outright.

The various re-interpretations of these passages I have received are:

• Since God might have forgiven those who crucified Christ (Luke 23:34), then they were not responsible.

  This is, to be blunt, one of the stupidest answers I have received. For if these individuals were not responsible for their actions since these actions were pre-ordained by God, then why oh why would they need to be forgiven of them in the first place?????

• God had pre-ordained everything leading up to and following the crucifixion.

  This is quite obviously playing fast and loose with the text, but is another great example of how the text is interpreted in the light of their philosophical rationalism.

• Since God quite possible forgave them of their sins (Luke 23:34), then they never sinned in the first place since if God knows everything and he "forgot" their sin, it must never have happened in the first place.

  No, I take it back. THIS answer is the most stupid I have received.

Nonetheless, it is rather obvious that the Arminian absolutely refuses to entertain the very possibility that the correct interpretation is as the Calvinist says it is. They cannot do so because that interpretation, as the poster cited above admits, "cannot be reconciled". Since it cannot be reconciled, it is automatically rejected as a possibility.

This is, as I have pointed out, interpreting Scripture in the light of philosophical rationalism.

And the philosohpical paradigm at the center of this rationalism is the philosophy of "Free-Will" which is automatically presumed to be the central issue of sotierology.

Jean

[Cvengr]

The fundametal difference between 'Calvinism' and their coined nemesis of 'Arminianism' probably boils down to perspectives of Scripture.

The 'Calvinist' tends to justify their position by first accepting the 'Soveriegnty' of God and then deducing their theological doctrines from that premise without necessarily studying God through faith in Christ. Some 'Calvinists' might indeed be saved by having had faith in God through Christ and the Holy Spirit performed made that faith efficacious in the believer, but the Calvinist is merely beginning his maturity in Christ from that theologic perspective.

Care needs to be taken though for the Calvinist, not to sin, or fall out of fellowship with God, then study Scripture while out of fellowship and then merely establish a legalistic belief system independent of faith in God. That's a religion. That's not Christianity. It's legalism, just as shunable as the Pharisees or Saduccees in their appeal to legalism vice faith in God through Christ.

Now, likewise, in respect to some arguments of 'Calvinists' who may have identified other persons who appeal to religion rather than a relationship with God, and label all such persons as 'Arminians', ...such 'Calvinist' arguments may indeed recognize some inconsistencies in some of their opponents' positions.


The real issue, IMHO, isn't so much, How do we trust these sources? as much as it is, 'Once we establish faith in God, through Christ, how do we trust these arguments?

IMHO, the answer is provided by faith in God through Jesus Christ. He has provided a solution for every problem we will ever face. Those solution are embedded in the methods of remaining faithful in Him in all things. Place it in His hands, and He will guide the solution appropriately. We will still bear our own burdens, but if we ever fall out of faith in Him, we no longer are performing via Divine righteousness and instead scar our souls to foolishly believe we might be solving any problem independent of Him.

The history has already been established, the grammar is only understood by faith in Him, regardless the interpretation, the theology follows the initial faith and working of the Holy Spirit in man bringing him further towards epignosis, as the believer remains faithful and continues to learn and apply Bible doctrine. The Commentaries are reviewed as one further develops his/her epistemilogical rehabilitation from a scarred soul to a continued life in fellowship with God and renewed spirit, further maturing in the soul through Christ. The Different Bibles are in many ways a moot point, because those who contiue in faith through Christ are led by the Holy Spirit in regards to their particular gifts by His hand.

For those who remian faithful, God's Soveriegnty is a given.

For those who fail to have ever had faith nor exercise faith in Him, there is no salvation, because we may only come to the Father through Christ,...in any of his many hundreds of names and references.

[Cvengr]

There probably are many 'Arminians' who fail to have ever had faith in Christ and not saved.

There are also many Calvinists who have not exhibited faith in Christ, and are not saved, even though they might exhibit many, many, legalistic trappings associated with a 'Christian' club. I do not label all 'Calvinists' as such, but 'Calvinism' is by no means superior to Christianity, nor is Christianity necessary to be an adament 'Calvinist'.

I've found the person who exhibits faith in God through Christ and rejoices in His Soverignty to be the better goal for either group.