CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[T.Lex]

haha

Yeah, but at least I don't feel as guilty for thinking the worst as I answered while adjusting for easier access to my EDC.

 

[ATM]

... But, ultimately, I figure it was just a random thing.

Random?



*Calvinist pops out of nowhere to argue*

 

[JettaKnight]

So... last week I was walking to my car downtown. A guy coming toward me on the sidewalk randomly looked at me and asked, "Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

Knowing that the Lord works in mysterious ways, I returned the eye contact and smiled, "Yes, I have." I kept walking; he kept walking.

Couldn't help but wonder if it was some sort of Christ-initiated pop quiz.

No, no, no...

The correct response it to say, "no, He accepted me. There was nothing I did."

Then immediately go through the TULIP.

 

[JettaKnight]

More Calvinist humor:

New Calvinist Baskin-Robbins Offers Customers One Preselected Flavor To Choose From

Local Mom Claims Vaccines Caused Her Son's Calvinism

 

[T.Lex]

Random?

Well, that's the closest word in the English language to "divine work with no apparent causal link or motivation."

No, no, no...

The correct response it to say, "no, He accepted me. There was nothing I did."

Then immediately go through the TULIP.

Well, in my defense, that truly never entered my mind.

Simple question. Simple answer. Seemed simple enough to me at the time.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well, that's the closest word in the English language to "divine work with no apparent causal link or motivation."

Serendipity?

Well, in my defense, that truly never entered my mind.

Simple question. Simple answer. Seemed simple enough to me at the time.

Oh, ye of little Calvinism.

 

[T.Lex]

Serendipity?

You protestants and your fancy made-up words....

Oh, ye of little Calvinism.

See, I figured you'd make fun of me for not trying to pin him down on his belief on transubstantiation.

 

[foszoe]

Providence

 

[T.Lex]

Never been to Rhode Island, but I hear its lovely.

 

[foszoe]

Rode through on the Moto Guzzi on my northeast tour.

Never been to Rhode Island, but I hear its lovely.

 

[JettaKnight]

Never been to Rhode Island, but I hear its lovely.

I hear it's (or at least it was) dirty...
https://gimletmedia.com/crimetown/

 

[T.Lex]

I hear it's (or at least it was) dirty...
https://gimletmedia.com/crimetown/

With a name like that, I guess it was destined to be that....

 

[JettaKnight]

With a name like that, I guess it was destined to be that....

Arg... that worse than the jokes are Asst. Pastor makes.

 

[foszoe]

The Babylon Bee postings are quite funny btw.

I have a couple of quick questions, I think, for the Reformed theology types out there.

I will put some context in front of the question. I have listened to a Protestant say that Salvation is like God, at the judgment, puts on glasses and sees Jesus instead of you.

Is this a theological derivative of Total Depravity?

Does a Christian change from what they were before?

I have read some reformed people who seem to make a case that "all" does not mean "all".

Do Reformed Christians consider the Bible a message to all or just to the elect?

Finally, without suggesting alternatives, if it is possible

Do you think this series would be a good intro to Reformed theology?

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL30acyfm60fXICLFyvTlD36Bh-ypGcrXe

A priest once said that people are taught to recognize counterfeit money by handling real money. I have mostly approached Reformed theology in the same manner, although I hope this comment is received as a demeaning one. I do find it to be true though when dealing with non confessional denominations in general.

When I read Protestant works, they are usually more devotional in nature than they are systematic theological works although I have some I use for reference. However, I was going to work my way through the above video series and the following ebook series.

Crucial Questions: 28 Free eBooks from R.C. Sproul

If there is any major disagreements between mainstream reformed and Sproul in general or either of the above two works?

 

[JettaKnight]

I will put some context in front of the question. I have listened to a Protestant say that Salvation is like God, at the judgment, puts on glasses and sees Jesus instead of you.

Is this a theological derivative of Total Depravity?

While TD helps, it's not essential to adhere to that doctrine. The concept is that all our sinful deeds are washed by the blood of the Lamb (I love that song!). There's all sorts of analogies: glasses, a book that contains our sin, but the ink is washed of the pages, etc.

Unless you have some twisted view of scales and "good outweighing the bad", or, God forbid, a universal view that all go to Heaven, there has to be some action at judgement related to atonement.

Does a Christian change from what they were before?

I don't know of any Christian doctrines that don't hold to this view. We're as rotting corpses on the bottom of the sea before Christ. Arminians believe they reach up to Christ's hand, Calvinist believe Christ snatches up our lifeless bodies.

Then the sanctification begins.

I have read some reformed people who seem to make a case that "all" does not mean "all".

Do Reformed Christians consider the Bible a message to all or just to the elect?

This, IMHO, is a sticky wicket. Most of my teachers at church (incl. Sr. Pastor) hold to the view that Christ died for all. Calvinist, like myself, belief Christ died for the elect. Nevertheless, that doctrine excludes any mention of the Bible and the Gospel. For it is by the Word that man finds Christ (...or Christ finds them ), therefore, the Word must be spread and preached to all mankind. It's sharper than any two-edged sword.


For reference, John MacArthur gives the best explanation and reasoning for Limited Atonement, or as he calls it, actual atonement.

Finally, without suggesting alternatives, if it is possible

Do you think this series would be a good intro to Reformed theology?

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL30acyfm60fXICLFyvTlD36Bh-ypGcrXe

I've listened to those lectures many times.

A priest once said that people are taught to recognize counterfeit money by handling real money. I have mostly approached Reformed theology in the same manner, although I hope this comment is received as a demeaning one. I do find it to be true though when dealing with non confessional denominations in general.

Too funny!

Wait, did you really mean, " ...I hope this comment is received as a demeaning one."
I'm guessing you meant, "not received."

When I read Protestant works, they are usually more devotional in nature than they are systematic theological works although I have some I use for reference. However, I was going to work my way through the above video series and the following ebook series.

Crucial Questions: 28 Free eBooks from R.C. Sproul

If there is any major disagreements between mainstream reformed and Sproul in general or either of the above two works?

Sproul is right down the center of reformed theology. I don't really know of any one of that bent that disagrees with him.

 

[foszoe]

While TD helps, it's not essential to adhere to that doctrine. The concept is that all our sinful deeds are washed by the blood of the Lamb (I love that song!). There's all sorts of analogies: glasses, a book that contains our sin, but the ink is washed of the pages, etc.

Unless you have some twisted view of scales and "good outweighing the bad", or, God forbid, a universal view that all go to Heaven, there has to be some action at judgement related to atonement.


I don't know of any Christian doctrines that don't hold to this view. We're as rotting corpses on the bottom of the sea before Christ. Arminians believe they reach up to Christ's hand, Calvinist believe Christ snatches up our lifeless bodies.

Then the sanctification begins.



This, IMHO, is a sticky wicket. Most of my teachers at church (incl. Sr. Pastor) hold to the view that Christ died for all. Calvinist, like myself, belief Christ died for the elect. Nevertheless, that doctrine excludes any mention of the Bible and the Gospel. For it is by the Word that man finds Christ (...or Christ finds them ), therefore, the Word must be spread and preached to all mankind. It's sharper than any two-edged sword.


For reference, John MacArthur gives the best explanation and reasoning for Limited Atonement, or as he calls it, actual atonement.


I've listened to those lectures many times.


Too funny!

Wait, did you really mean, " ...I hope this comment is received as a demeaning one."
I'm guessing you meant, "not received."



Sproul is right down the center of reformed theology. I don't really know of any one of that bent that disagrees with him.

Yes I left out a NOT

 

[JettaKnight]

So, my Pastor, who grew up in the Greek Orthodox faith, finds it fascinating that we converse.

He also finds it fascinating, comical really, that I grew in a KJV-only school and now am an avid homebrewer.

 

[foszoe]

An interesting tidbit!

So, my Pastor, who grew up in the Greek Orthodox faith, finds it fascinating that we converse.

He also finds it fascinating, comical really, that I grew in a KJV-only school and now am an avid homebrewer.

 

[foszoe]

For reference, John MacArthur gives the best explanation and reasoning for Limited Atonement, or as he calls it, actual atonement.

Observations from the sermon,

This is the doctrine of absolute inability. He can’t make it. He cannot make that choice. All people - all people - are sinners, and all sinners are dead in their trespasses and sins. All of them are alienated from the life of God. All do only evil continually. All are unwilling and unable to understand, to repent and to believe.

To sound "calvinist" this all can't really be all as we have people from the Old Testament declared Righteous.

John's general thrust, at least in the beginning, is that mankind can not make the first move. I would say debating who can make the first move is superfluous because God already did. The heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament His handiwork. God's grace is at work in the world to draw those in sin to Him. Creation itself is God's first move, so to speak.

That is to say, the death of Jesus Christ, then, is not an actual atonement, it is only a potential atonement. He really did not purchase salvation for anyone in particular. He only removed some kind of barrier to make it possible for sinners to choose to be saved.]

I agree with John's assessment of the evangelical view. Christ's work on the cross did not end on the cross though. So the divergence from John and evangelicals in general would be that Christ work is completed by the Resurrection. If all Christ did was die there would be no saving grace. The purpose of Christ coming was not JUST to atone for sins but to also conquer death. Even those in the OT declared righteous stand in need of this. The Orthodox view of original sin is precisely this. We are not all guilty of Adam's sin but we are all subject to death for the "wages of sin is death". Just as we have a belief in communal salvation we have a belief in communal sin that is we all benefit from the salvation of one and we all suffer from the sin of one. I did not see the resurrection mentioned once in the sermon.

My boss can buy a buffet for the whole crew. I can choose not to eat it. That doesn't mean she didn't give me a choice. Christ offers salvation to all, pays for all, but that doesn't make the choice for me. I must still decide.

There is a hypothetical, theoretical line of thinking that goes like this. Even IF it were possible to live an entire life WITHOUT sin unless there is a divine act to conquer death, one would still be subject to death.

In general after reading through the sermon, I would say the fundamental difference is how we view creation and the fall, which is something I often say

Specifically are we created in God's image? If we are that includes "free will". Period. For me to accept another point of view, it would have to be shown that God does not possess "free will". For someone to do that would impose, I think, on God's sovereignty, something no respectable Calvinist would do. I see little in the Bible's recounting of interactions between God and man that support a denial of "free will".

I've listened to those lectures many times.

Just finished the first

 

[rvb]

now am an avid homebrewer.

So Hebrews is your favorite book?


sorry. really. [sorta.]

-rvb