Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Calvinist 5 Solas

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Nang View Post
    John 1:14 speaks of the Son of God manifesting His heavenly glory by assuming a flesh body.

    There is no mention of His Being "changing."

    There are NO contradictions in the Holy Scriptures.
    Going from having existed forever as a spirit to being a human being with a body of flesh is a gigantic change!

    Going from being the God who created all living things to being a dead human being is a huge change!

    Going from being a dead human being to being alive again, with a new glorified human body that will never taste death again, is an incredibly magnificent change!

    It is literally impossible to be a Christian without acknowledging that God changes in the most ineffably profound of ways!

    You can say that the gospel doesn't imply a change if you want but the bible absolutely does not teach that God is immutable in the Classical sense of the term, which is what Calvinism not only teaches but is based upon.

    Plato is not the source of my faith; nor my beliefs.
    Saying it doesn't make it so, Nang!

    You would never have heard of immutability if not for Plato's Republic. Augustine believed it, he built a doctrine around it, introduced that doctrine into the Catholic church, Luther believed it and Calvin formalized it into what is known today as Reformed Doctrine or Calvinism. That is the truth, Nang. Denying it is only so much burying your head in the sand.

    My doctrine is founded upon the study of Moses, the psalmists, and the prophets . . who all spoke of the coming of Messiah. As instructed by Jesus Christ in Luke 24:44.

    Sola Scriptura!
    How I wish this were so! The fact is that you read your doctrine into the text and ignore glaringly obvious contradictions such as the doctrine of immutability and the incarnation (the whole gospel actually).

    I totally disagree. " . . There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
    I didn't suggest that the premise was false, only that it is not your PRIMARY theological premise, and it isn't! No Christology could be, by definition! The existence of God would have to be a premise one accepted long before you ever saw any need to form a Christology. As I said in the last post and which you ignored. A premise that has an underlying premise of its own cannot be your PRIMARY theological premise.

    There's nothing there for you to disagree with, Nang. Don't be stupid.

    Bah . . .

    It is no wonder you remain adrift in your errors.
    Okay! Explain it to me then, Nang!

    You explain to me how one can form a Christology without first understanding and accepting as true the concept of a Christ (i.e. Messiah).

    Go ahead! Explain it!

    Clete
    sigpic
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Nang View Post
      John 1:14 speaks of the Son of God manifesting His heavenly glory by assuming a flesh body.

      There is no mention of His Being "changing."
      So you deny that "manifesting" and "assuming" are not words that mean to change? Was God ever NOT "manifesting His glory by assuming a flesh body?

      Because those words are, by definition, changes. Denying that means that you assert that everywhere in the Bible that it describes God doing something, it's lying.

      Are you calling God, that Author of scripture, a liar, Nang? Because that's what you do when you deny that God changes, you call God a liar for describing Himself as changing, when He really doesn't change.

      There are NO contradictions in the Holy Scriptures.
      In the texts we have today, there are verses that do not line up with each other, and even contradict. But none of them affect the major teaching of the Bible, which is that Christ, God the Son, BECAME a man (He changed from being ONLY SPIRIT to being BOTH SPIRIT AND FLESH).

      Plato is not the source of my faith; nor my beliefs.
      Yes, he is. You've been shown that many times already.

      Sola Scriptura!
      It's a good thing that this position isn't scriptural, because otherwise it mean that you would have to disregard even Calvin.

      Bah . . .

      It is no wonder you remain adrift in your errors.


      More bloviating.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Clete View Post


        I didn't suggest that the premise was false, only that it is not your PRIMARY theological premise, and it isn't! No Christology could be, by definition!
        Right. Christology is the premise (explanatory proposition) founded upon the absolute axiom, that God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory. (Gospel)

        Problem you Open Theists have, is you do not believe in eternal absolutes. You do not believe in absolute Godly attributes. Thus, you do not really believe in the propositions of the one saving Gospel which is the fruit and revelation of these absolute truths.

        Such unbelief prevents you believing the propositions that are the foundation of the Gospel, Savior/God.

        Why?

        You desire to worship the so-called "free will" propositions, theories, and opinions of fallen men, who all rest on the axiom of absolute lawlessness.







        Okay! Explain it to me then, Nang!

        You explain to me how one can form a Christology without first understanding and accepting as true the concept of a Christ (i.e. Messiah).

        Go ahead! Explain it!
        O.K. I just did . . .

        "Concepts and propositions" issue forth from absolute axiom, alone.

        Since you deny timeless eternity; absolutes; and divine attributes, you have no knowledge of God's absolute Truth; thus you are stuck believing garbage instead of the Word of God which testifies to Jesus Christ; God Who came in flesh to save souls.
        "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

        " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
        Gordon H. Clark

        "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
        Charles Spurgeon

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
          So you deny that "manifesting" and "assuming" are not words that mean to change?
          Yes I certainly do.

          Was God ever NOT "manifesting His glory by assuming a flesh body?
          The body of Jesus Christ was resurrected and glorified as it has always been manifested in heaven for eternity.

          Because those words are, by definition, changes. Denying that means that you assert that everywhere in the Bible that it describes God doing something, it's lying.
          You are confusing Godly works with Godly essence; neither of which alone define God's eternal and absolute Sovereinty.

          Are you calling God, that Author of scripture, a liar, Nang? Because that's what you do when you deny that God changes, you call God a liar for describing Himself as changing, when He really doesn't change.
          Some false teacher(s) have taught you this nonsense. God is immutable or He is not God.



          In the texts we have today, there are verses that do not line up with each other, and even contradict.
          Only in the eyes of fallible men and false teachers who have not been given eyes to see. The Word of God is perfect and absolutely truthful.

          But none of them affect the major teaching of the Bible, which is that Christ, God the Son, BECAME a man (He changed from being ONLY SPIRIT to being BOTH SPIRIT AND FLESH).
          Such is impossible, just as it is impossible the Father or Holy Spirit would or could ever change from Who they are forever.

          Jesus Christ has always been God/Man. In eternity; as manifested in this world.
          "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

          " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
          Gordon H. Clark

          "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
          Charles Spurgeon

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nang View Post
            [QUOT.E=Clete;5357990]




            Right. Christology is the premise (explanatory proposition) founded upon the absolute axiom, that God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory. (Gospel)

            Problem you Open Theists have, is you do not believe in eternal absolutes. You do not believe in absolute Godly attributes. Thus, you do not really believe in the propositions of the one saving Gospel which is the fruit and revelation of these absolute truths.

            Such unbelief prevents you believing the propositions that are the foundation of the Gospel, Savior/God.

            Why?

            You desire to worship the so-called "free will" propositions, theories, and opinions of fallen men, who all rest on the axiom of absolute lawlessness.









            O.K. I just did . . .

            "Concepts and propositions" issue forth from absolute axiom, alone.

            Since you deny timeless eternity; absolutes; and divine attributes, you have no knowledge of God's absolute Truth; thus you are stuck believing garbage instead of the Word of God which testifies to Jesus Christ; God Who came in flesh to save souls.
            Fix your formatting before someone replies to this formatting mess.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
              Fix your formatting before someone replies to this formatting mess.
              #243 does not look like your version on my reader . . .

              Maybe you see the beginning of a response from Clete?
              "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

              " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
              Gordon H. Clark

              "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
              Charles Spurgeon

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Nang View Post
                Right. Christology is the premise (explanatory proposition) founded upon the absolute axiom, that God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory. (Gospel)
                It's pretty obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. The gospel cannot, in any meaningful sense of the word, be considered an axiom.

                God exist.

                Now that's a presupposition might be something that could be considered an axiom but even that would require some explanation as to why it was so considered.

                Getting from the premise to, "God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory" or whatever other point of doctrine you care to name is something of a complex issue, depending on the particular doctrine. Regardless, there is no possible way that in any world that actually exists that the doctrine of the Trinity or any doctrine associated with it could ever be considered axiomatic.

                Maybe you should look up the definitions of some of these terms before spouting your mouth off about things you know nothing about.

                Problem you Open Theists have, is you do not believe in eternal absolutes.
                That's a lie!

                Of course we do! God exists. God is alive. God is personal, God is relational , God is righteous, God is loving, God is just.

                All of those things (and several more) are true and absolutely so. Any truth claim that contradicts any one of them is false by definition.

                You do not believe in absolute Godly attributes.
                Question begging stupidity.

                I do not believe in the attributes that you and Plato force upon God because they are not only unbiblical but because they are in contradiction to the attributes I just listed.

                Thus, you do not really believe in the propositions of the one saving Gospel which is the fruit and revelation of these absolute truths.
                Wow! I'm astonished at the number of Calvinist heresies that I've managed to get you to endorse in an open forum!

                Now it is Calvinists and Calvinists alone who believe that gospel and by extension it is only Calvinists who are saved.

                That tracks though! I mean, if only God's elect believe in the first place, then why would He predestine His elect to believe false doctrine, right?

                Such unbelief prevents you believing the propositions that are the foundation of the Gospel, Savior/God.
                No, if this is true and your doctrine is correct, what prevents me from believing is God Himself. According to you, I believe precisely what God has predestined me to believe. He has also predestined that I argue you into corners from which you cannot escape every time that you engage me, which He also predestined.

                Why?

                You desire to worship the so-called "free will" propositions, theories, and opinions of fallen men, who all rest on the axiom of absolute lawlessness.
                I dare you to make even the slightest attempt to establish that anyone's belief in free will is based on "the axiom of absolute lawlessness".

                You'll need to start by figuring out how absolute lawlessness could ever be considered an axiom, which you will fail to do so let's lower the philosophical bar a bit and see if you can even accomplish the task of establishing that "absolute lawlessness" is even a premise upon which the belief in free will is logically based.

                Go ahead! Prove to us all that this idiotic accusation didn't just leap from a bloviating tongue that is driven by an empty mind.


                O.K. I just did . . .

                "Concepts and propositions" issue forth from absolute axiom, alone.

                Since you deny timeless eternity; absolutes; and divine attributes, you have no knowledge of God's absolute Truth; thus you are stuck believing garbage instead of the Word of God which testifies to Jesus Christ; God Who came in flesh to save souls.
                You started this post with a one word sentence...

                "Right."

                That was stated in agreement with my undeniably true statement that no Christology could possibly be a primary premise. Now you're claiming that your agreement that it couldn't be a primary premise was somehow the equivalent to having done the opposite?

                Nang, would you please stop getting drunk before posting on TOL! This is getting embarrassing for you!

                Not only is one's Christology not an axiom, neither is the concept of a Messiah!

                Let me help you out of your drunken stupor...

                An axiom is a proposition that is SELF EVIDENTLY true.

                The fact that Jesus was the Messiah or that there ever was a Messiah at all is not something that could be self-evidently true. There are arguments that can establish the truth of these things but the whole point is that you don't have to argue the truth of an axiom because it is SELF EVIDENTLY true.

                So, put down the adult beverages and open a philosophy 101 book and get back to me when you have some clue about what you're talking about.

                50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know

                Clete
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • Back to the Thread Subject . . .

                  The confessions of the Five Solas are founded upon and developed from belief in the axiom:

                  God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory.

                  The "self-evidence" (axiom) of the existence of absolute lawlessness proscribes unbelief, disobedience, and reprobation.

                  Those of the Reformed Faith hold to both truths.

                  And from these confessions, systematic theology and biblical theology known as TULIP, Reformers proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
                  "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                  " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                  Gordon H. Clark

                  "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                  Charles Spurgeon

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Nang View Post
                    Back to the Thread Subject . . .
                    We never left the subject of the thread!

                    Someone should force you to respond to people's posts or else leave the forum. You aught not be allowed to waste people's time in this way.

                    The confessions of the Five Solas are founded upon and developed from belief in the axiom:

                    God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory.
                    You're lying, Nang!

                    First of all that is not an axiom, (as I've already said in my previous post and which you have ignored). It's not even a properly written sentence!

                    If it were properly written so that it made sense, it could stand as a premise but it definitely is not an axiom by any definition.

                    The "self-evidence" (axiom) of the existence of absolute lawlessness proscribes unbelief, disobedience, and reprobation.
                    Are you just making this up as you go or what?

                    In what way is the triune nature of God or any one of His several covenants, especially those concerning salvation, self-evident?

                    Don't just repeat the claim! Make the argument!

                    You won't even make an attempt because you're a liar and a troll.

                    Those of the Reformed Faith hold to both truths.

                    And from these confessions, systematic theology and biblical theology known as TULIP, Reformers proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
                    So here we go again with the proclaimation that only Calvinist believe the gospel.

                    What a mess you are, Nang!

                    Go ahead then! Take sola scriptura, or whatever sola doctrine you want and show us all how it is based on the "axiom" of "God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that [He] has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory."! Show us all the argument, Nang, if you can! Start from that premise, which you idiotically call an axiom, and show us the line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion, "Therefore, sola scriptura."

                    Again, you won't even try to do that because you already know that it can't be done. At best, one or more of the sola doctrines are the premises upon which other Calvinist doctrines are based but I'm 100% certain that, if that happens to be the case, you are utterly unaware of the actual arguments involved and would have exactly zero idea of how to formulate them yourself.

                    Clete
                    sigpic
                    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Clete View Post


                      You're lying, Nang!
                      Enough of this . . .
                      "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                      " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                      Gordon H. Clark

                      "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                      Charles Spurgeon

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X