"The early Christians said.." argument.

[pshun2404]

What's up with you and the John Calvin red herring? Seriously - why do you always do that? Do you honestly think monergism was invented by John Calvin? How many times do we have to correct you on this?

Diverting? The subject was "the early christians said..." argument, not monergism. As monergism is correctly defined "That salvation is totally of God" there was never any doubt. As Calminian rightly pointed out, God owes no man anything even if he believes...but this was His sovereignly determined plan...so the fact stands that the early Christians did in fact believe the scriptures are the plumbline of truth and any doctrine, practice, or proposition, not found therein should not be required...they just did not teach this view. Skala was saying their witness is to be respected but implied it is unreliable and I was merely pointing out so was Calvin's...

I also believing the Bible to be the word of God and the truth upon which all our doctrines are to based I find their witness 100% more reliable having learned what these things mean from the Apostles themselves or those they themselves taught and appointed.

Paul

 

[Skala]

Skala was saying their witness is to be respected but implied it is unreliable and I was merely pointing out so was Calvin's...

Paul

I guess Arminius' is unreliable too.

And Pshun

And Pshun's pastor

And all the synergistic bible teachers Pshun listens to

Is ANYONE reliable Pshun? Or did you just have to toss out the snide remark about poor ole Calvin, simply because you hate monergism?

 

[Tzaousios]

Skala, please see my reply to you in post #12 above. Thanks!

 

[LBP]

So, you obviously consider this the best tactic (because that's what you do). And would you say you'd recommend that everyone adopted this tactic, too?

The thing is, this is nothing but subjective preference serving as the foundation for each individual.

The end result is the very thing you take issue with (the varying denominations and interpretations and ideas)

If each person did what you do, and simply takes what they subjectively "feel" are the important bits, and ignore the rest, then we are left with...exactly what you argued against.

Kind of a self-refuting worldview isn't it? And yet you feel confident?

In my mind, your post did nothing but further establish the importance of a singular, objective, unchanging truth. (sola scriptura)

Somethings for your studies:

Self-refuting statements defined and some common examples | Wintery Knight

“Self-Refuting Statements” | The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress

Your own logic is obviously flawed. There is no "singular, objective, unchanging truth." The inter- and intra-denominational squabbling that has characterized Christianity for the past 2,000 years refutes your position about as convincingly as any untruth could be refuted. The idea that there is a "singular, objective, unchanging" truth is a fantasy. Trying to make this fantasy a reality, IMHO, can become a form of mental illness, like spending one's life trying to pound round pegs into square holes and wondering why it never gets any easier.

I do believe that the gist of the Bible message can be captured in a few, relatively non-controversial pages. I would indeed recommend that everyone undertake this exercise and articulate a personal creed. But what I am talking about is an entirely personal statement; I am not interested in convincing others to adopt mine or in debating mine with others. My point, which you missed in your enthusiasm for your position, is that this exercise in simplicity would free each of us to live something resembling Christian lives without the inter- and intra-denominational warfare over fine points of doctrine that now characterizes "Christianity." I do indeed believe that 2,000,000,000 individual Christians attempting to actually live simple, personal statements of faith would produce a religion far more closely resembling what Jesus was talking about than the one we now have.

I thus do not see anything self-refuting or otherwise illogical about my position. Your position, however, is completely at odds with 2,000 years of history and the current state of "Christianity." I would agree that what I am saying has little to do with "sola scriptura" per se. I was simply struck by the facial absurdity (IMHO) of the statements in your post.

 

[Hammster]

Your own logic is obviously flawed. There is no "singular, objective, unchanging truth."

Jesus begs to differ. John 14:6

 

[guuila]

There is no "singular, objective, unchanging truth."

Is this a singular, objective, unchanging, truthful statement?

 

[pshun2404]

I guess Arminius' is unreliable too.

And Pshun

And Pshun's pastor

And all the synergistic bible teachers Pshun listens to

Is ANYONE reliable Pshun? Or did you just have to toss out the snide remark about poor ole Calvin, simply because you hate monergism?

Like you...only the scriptures Skala, I just believe the preacher/teachers for the first 200 years were far more reliable than either JC or Arminius (who I still have yet to read...I will get around to it one day, I just have too many more important projects at the time) and I do not hate monergism I just see monergism differently than you. Also just for your info I do not get my position from any pastors or teachers (though I use to) and I listen to as many Calvinists and reformed preachers as I do others...I just love hearing God's word and appreciate their different reasonings (though I do not agree with everything anyone says...except the word as a whole)

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Jesus begs to differ. John 14:6

Lol! You know this poster was speaking of any single theological position professed by men aside from the scriptures...now now!

 

[Hammster]

Lol! You know this poster was speaking of any single theological position professed by men aside from the scriptures...now now!

Sorry, but I didn't.

 

[guuila]

Lol! You know this poster was speaking of any single theological position professed by men aside from the scriptures...now now!

'There is no "singular, objective, unchanging truth."' is a theological position professed by a man aside from the Scriptures.

 

[Skala]

There is no "singular, objective, unchanging truth." .

Another self-refuting statement.

You really need to study logic:

Self-refuting statements defined and some common examples | Wintery Knight

 

[Skala]

Like you...only the scriptures Skala, I just believe the preacher/teachers for the first 200 years were far more reliable than either JC or Arminius (who I still have yet to read...I will get around to it one day, I just have too many more important projects at the time) and I do not hate monergism I just see monergism differently than you. Also just for your info I do not get my position from any pastors or teachers (though I use to) and I listen to as many Calvinists and reformed preachers as I do others...I just love hearing God's word and appreciate their different reasonings (though I do not agree with everything anyone says...except the word as a whole)

Paul

Do you agree with the Bible when it makes statements about God controlling all things, God choosing people for salvation, and regeneration being monergistic?

 

[Tzaousios]

Skala, please see my reply to you in post #12 above. Thanks!

 

[Skala]

Skala, please see my reply to you in post #12 above. Thanks!

I will get around to it my friend. Been busy, plus your post is huge!

 

[LBP]

Sorry, but I didn't.

Well, if you didn't, you are apparently an exceedingly careless reader.

 

[guuila]

Well, if you didn't, you are apparently an exceedingly careless reader.

Goading a moderator... generally an unwise action.

 

[LBP]

Another self-refuting statement.

You really need to study logic:

Self-refuting statements defined and some common examples | Wintery Knight

Skala, sweetie, if you and Hammster and griff would read a little more carefully and think just a second or two before hitting the "Submit Reply" button, you really would do us all a favor. Precisely, as pshun2404 recognized, I was referring solely to the OP's position that there is "a singular, objective, unchanging truth" to be derived from the pages of the Bible, to which my reply is: No, there isn't, as evidence by the tens of thousands of differing "truths" that the warring factions have derived from it. I am a licensed professional who makes my living working with the principles of logic, so please spare me the "helpful" links with which you might favor some typical CF yahoo.

 

[LBP]

Goading a moderator... generally an unwise action.

Like I care. If someone can't doesn't read carefully enough to make an intelligent response, whether that someone is a Moderator -- OOOOHHHH -- really doesn't concern me.

 

[guuila]

Like I care. If someone can't doesn't read carefully enough to make an intelligent response, whether that someone is a Moderator -- OOOOHHHH -- really doesn't concern me.

Your opinion has been noted.

 

[guuila]

No, there isn't, as evidence by the tens of thousands of differing "truths" that the warring factions have derived from it.

The fact that tens of thousands of people have different opinions doesn't mean there isn't one truth. It just means a lot of people are wrong.

I am a licensed professional who makes my living working with the principles of logic, so please spare me the "helpful" links with which you might favor some typical CF yahoo.

Weird. The massive non sequitur you just committed says otherwise.