Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Calvinist 5 Solas

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

  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post


    You're lying, Nang!
    Enough of this . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    God is either immutable or He can change.
    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.


    Calvinist routinely deny believing in immutability because of Plato and then it typically isn't more than a few sentences later that they very nearly quote Plato's argument for the doctrine. The fact that they are ignorant of the history of their own doctrine doesn't count as me misrepresenting their beliefs. You, however, have no excuse. You know perfectly well what I was referring to when I mentioned Plato and you know perfectly well that you completely and entirely agree with and endorse and use Plato's argument for the doctrine of immutability. Not only that but because you've know me for years, I know that you are fully aware that Plato is the source, the very fountain head of that argument and that both Catholics and Calvinists are in full agreement with it!
    Plato is not the source of my faith; nor my beliefs.

    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!

    Solus Christus!






    Further, no one's Christology is their primary theological premise anyway.
    I totally disagree. " . . There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

    You can't even understand what the word "Christ" means,
    nevermind form a theology around it,
    Bah . . .

    It is no wonder you remain adrift in your errors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry Shugart
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    You missed it. Try again:
    I missed nothing. It is you who missed what I said and that is obviously why you just ignored what I said. I explained that God is described as "invisible" because He now resides in the eternal state and those in flesh and blood bodies are not equipped to see things which are described as being of the spirit and eternal.

    But when those in the Body of Christ are raptured they will put on heavenly bodies and with those new bodies they will able to see the face of God:
    "And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).

    How can God's servants see His face if He is invisible?

    You just ignore what is written at Revelation 22:3-4 because what is said there doesn't match your preconceived ideas.

    Or perhaps your Bible does not have the verses found at Revelation 22:3-4?

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Nang View Post
    But I do . . I say Amen to John 1:14!



    Who says it does? They are both true.
    God is either immutable or He can change. It can't be both. The only way for you to think that they are both true is for you to accept my way of thinking about one or both of those passages.

    I dare say that I'm the first person you ever encountered (years ago) that made you look at both ideas at once! Calvinists typically keep their doctrines so compartmentalized that the glaring contradiction between immutability and the incarnation never occurs to them and when they are made to see it, they ignore it, call it a mystery or antinomy and move on as though it weren't a real issue. If pressed they start calling me a liar and accusing me of knocking down straw man arguments or else shouting "amen" when others do the same.

    The bottom line is that no matter how much lip service you give to these passages both being true, the fact is that in every aspect of your doctrine and religious practice, Hebrews 13 trumps John 1 fifty times a day and double that on Sundays. If you acknowledge John 1 at all, it is with an asterisk beside it. It is John's meaning that is modified from the plain reading in order to somehow be forced not to conflict with Hebrews 13.

    Why do you always attempt to tell people what they believe and why?
    I do not!

    I started that "John Calvin Said This..." thread expected to be able to find some Calvinist somewhere who would say something like...

    "Calvin was clearly wrong on that particular point!" or
    "Calvin was right except..." or
    "Official Calvinist doctrine has moved away from John Calvin's writings in regards to the issue of..."

    ...or something somewhere along those lines.

    I didn't get it!
    In fact, I got the opposite! I not only got agreement from 100% of Calvinist respondents but I got full throated endorsement of every syllable that I quoted. I've been doing this for decades, Nang! I have discussed and debated doctrine with dozens and dozens, probably hundreds of Calvinists and they all believe this stuff! All of them! Including you! They all also refuse to acknowledge the logical implications of their beliefs but that's a whole different issue from me supposedly misrepresenting their beliefs.

    None of the above means a thing to me and you fail to describe my beliefs repeatedly.
    Why do you lie like this Nang? Lying is a sin! Do you think God predestined you to lie just so that I would point it out? You must!

    Calvinist routinely deny believing in immutability because of Plato and then it typically isn't more than a few sentences later that they very nearly quote Plato's argument for the doctrine. The fact that they are ignorant of the history of their own doctrine doesn't count as me misrepresenting their beliefs. You, however, have no excuse. You know perfectly well what I was referring to when I mentioned Plato and you know perfectly well that you completely and entirely agree with and endorse and use Plato's argument for the doctrine of immutability. Not only that but because you've know me for years, I know that you are fully aware that Plato is the source, the very fountain head of that argument and that both Catholics and Calvinists are in full agreement with it!

    There you go again . . .

    No, my primary theological premise and faith, is that Jesus Christ, my Savior, came into this world as both God and Man.
    No, faith in God and the fact that Jesus Christ is that God is all doctrine. More specifically, it is Christology which you say is "impossible for you to hold to a correct Christology as long as you deny the eternal state which is the realm of the Triune God".

    You just don't get to have it both ways, Nang. You cannot have as your primary theological premise a Christology that is based on the premise of "the eternal state which is the realm of the Triune God". Something that has a premise of it's own cannot be your primary premise.

    Further, no one's Christology is their primary theological premise anyway. You can't even understand what the word "Christ" means, nevermind form a theology around it, without a whole list of other, more primary premises, the most important of which is not how big or powerful God is or how much God knows but rather an understanding of who He is and what He does, that is, an understanding of God's character. God's power is not relevant to a proper theology if one believes that God is arbitrary. It does not matter what God knows if He is found to be a fool or stupid nor does it matter how many places an unloving God can be at once.

    So I believe both John 1:14 and Hebrews 13:8 accurately describe His Person.

    YOU are the one who denies the Truth of Hebrews 13:8.
    No! You read your doctrine into Hebrews 13 and refuse to believe that God changed when He became a man and died and rose from the grave!
    You effectively deny BOTH PASSAGES!!!

    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • ttruscott
    replied
    Originally posted by Nang View Post
    God gave Adam conditional authority over the created world, and all living beings on this earth. Only an innocent and sinless man could continue to hold that responsibility, and it is what Adam lost when he disobeyed God and was rejected from the garden.

    Sinners cannot ever inhabit the realm (eternity) of God. Sinners are dealt with on earth only.
    Wow, perhaps the biggest non-sequitur I've ever seen... I understand this and I reject it but in any case, it really does not speak to what I wrote at all...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    Why do you say "Amen" to that verse and not this one...
    John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
    But I do . . I say Amen to John 1:14!

    Why does Hebrew 13 trump John?
    Who says it does? They are both true.


    Is it not possible that Hebrews 13 and other passages like it are talking of God's character, the quality of His person and of His authority as Creator? Why do the three verses that Calvinist quote about God not changing have to mean that God the Son did not BECOME a man, die and rise to life as a man forever more?

    The answer, since I know you won't give it, is because of Plato and his pagan belief that God is immutable. That is the ONLY reason! Whether you acknowledge it or not, that is THE reason why you believe that John chapter 1 does not mean that God changed in any meaningful way.
    Why do you always attempt to tell people what they believe and why? None of the above means a thing to me and you fail to describe my beliefs repeatedly.



    So you admit then that the doctrine of divine timelessness (a corollary of immutability) is your primary theological premise!
    There you go again . . .

    No, my primary theological premise and faith, is that Jesus Christ, my Savior, came into this world as both God and Man.

    So I believe both John 1:14 and Hebrews 13:8 accurately describe His Person.

    YOU are the one who denies the Truth of Hebrews 13:8.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X