Search results

You might not think you believe anymore—but maybe you still do. Maybe you're just trying to steel man unbelief—maybe you're just an honest seeker of truth, like Thomas Jefferson was (he courageously steel manned atheism itself, he was so committed to knowing the truth). Maybe you're method...

So you have no moral obligations is what you're saying? [In this context I can only imagine that this is what you mean.]

obv you should avoid grave sin. $$ 1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, $$ 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards...

And that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, except I'm just taking a step back, zooming out from individual evils to their tenet that the Elect are Unconditionally chosen. There's no way to change that choice. And that is the same as twice two being equal to four, as far as moral...

Not Calvinism with Mary mother of God (which is just not being a Nestorian). Calvinism with tolerating abortionist "doctors" dismembering babies in the womb, because Calvinism doesn't harbor moral obligations, so Calvinism doesn't evaluate babies dismembered in the womb by abortionist "doctors"...

No. You have to be a Nestorian to deny Mary mother of God. But the point is that Mary mother of God isn't in the Bible, and the Apostles didn't call Our Lady Mary mother of God, but syllogistically, Mary mother of God is required. And it's the same with Calvinism requiring no moral...

Right, but syllogisms entail that Calvinism believes many aborted babies in the womb are in Hell rn.

Calvinism. It's separate from my comment. Unconditional election, the U in TULIP, necessarily requires what's called moral anti-realism or nihilism, because as I said, God already made the choice about you, and you can't change it, so therefore there's no point in trying, and that's just a...

So [does] He permit or decree abortion?

He permits or decrees that tens of millions of literal human babies are dismembered maliciously, and you think that many of those babies are in Hell now anyway. No?

It's the irony Paul is trying to explain in Romans 9, with Jacob and Esau. Christ according to the flesh is a descendant of Jacob, and yet Jacob, who here represents Israel and Judah, doesn't believe in Him, but Esau (representing Gentiles) does believe in Him. It's backwards, it's ironic...

Whether they commit evil or not doesn't change God's eternal choice He already made about you.

You're about to see the exact parallel in a Calvinist to Nestorianism in a Roman Catholic, thank you for the quote (e4e): Yes ... 100 Percent. They're going to quibble and get lost in the weeds over their claim that all babies DON'T go to Heaven. What a bizarre hill to die on, but die on it...

Yes, like the tradition of saying Calvinism doesn't promote literally ethical nihilism—even though it most unmistakenly does promote literally ethical nihilism, or call it, moral anti-realism, or moral irrealism. They don't believe ethical propositions bear any truth, that's just the logic of...

You're absolutely right. My mistake. I should have said something like We're not "traditional" Dispensationalists.

It's the Law that makes the Lord Jesus Christ the One worthy sacrifice for the eternal penalty of sin that I'm most interested in knowing and understanding and living my life according to. When I "believe in" Christ, that's the Law I'm believing in—no other option. There's some theology...

That's what I said Clete. Thanks for nothing.

We're not Dispensationalists, so we don't believe Peter and the 12 and Paul are not the same. All Apostolic traditions are of equal value.

"When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim Your death O Lord until You come again."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Catholics