Is Calvinism a heresy?

[jameslouise]

I've had visions too. One in particular is so visceral (concerning the nature of sin and its effect upon the universe) even now more than 30 years later (I think), that I can't even describe it without having to separate myself from the experience of it.

I would really like to hear more on that as have an hypothesis that 'the whole of creation groaning' includes light and the speed of light too, and radiometric dating is dependent on a static speed of light. So a variable speed of light would invalidate most dating methods

 

[Mark Quayle]

Something has just dawned on me because you made me focus on the words 'yearly' and 'often'. So that has made my day and thank you. Good sharpening. Remember I said that all mentions of foundation of the world (katabole kosmos) can simultaneously be referring to man's salvation too-a deliberate double meaning ('katabole kosmos' meaning a breaking down and new harmonious arrangement instead) meaning our new born again remade spirit. Well i think the use of often is to this end. Whereas Jesus would have had to have suffered every year from the Abrahamic Covenant under those laws but once saved He would have to suffer (every 5 mins!) every time we sinned for the new covenant with indwellings etc. The yearly in effect being a subset of often. What a brilliant bit of scripture.

First answer the question. Or attempt to assure me of where you stand in the matter.

—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet, and particularly, what authority do they have? Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight, or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole?

I would really like to hear more on that as have an hypothesis that 'the whole of creation groaning' includes light and the speed of light too, and radiometric dating is dependent on a static speed of light. So a variable speed of light would invalidate most dating methods

I had this discussion just last night, over the phone with my son. For whatever use you may make of it, the notion of static speed of light vs variable speed of light is kind of double-talk —at least, to my mind and what I understand about physics and cosmology. The question, if one is to believe in the Big Bang and Black Holes etc, is one of perspective. To our current position, what happened 7 billion years ago may seem to have been happening at a different rate from what is happening now. But to one (supposing there was one) back then, what was happening then was happening at the same rate as what is happening now seems to us now. Let's suppose that God's point of view was/is from before the Big Bang, or better, from outside the whole business. We can only conjecture that he sees changing rates because we attribute 'reality' to 'change'. But maybe his point of view is merely of fact, not change —of 'being', not 'becoming'. Admitting my ignorance, the only answers I can draw are that the science community is inconsistent and that God is not us, and that we don't know very much.

Maybe describing this paralleling thought will help: If what we call the event horizon around a black hole (let's represent the concept of "black hole" as an ever-increasingly curved funnel (not a consistent rate cone), much like the sci-fi movies sometimes show them, or like they show the beginnings of a wormhole, but with the 'event horizon' at its rim). We can see the rim where the event horizon is the point-of-no-return border of light and matter —or so we think. Yet, can one being sucked toward that event horizon, know that he has neared it? Why would he not see what he thinks is the event horizon, "at a place farther into the funnel", as we would say from our current perspective? Are we not all from our current positions being attracted toward the nearest biggest (most influential) black hole (and for that matter, all black holes)? If reality (space-time) is shrinking toward that infinitesimal core, why do we assume stresses that would tear a spacecraft apart? From any one point of view, the spacecraft bends/stretches/compresses. But at each point along that bend/stretch/compression, the view is standard fact, and all else variance from it.

 

[rturner76]

Yes, I believe Calvinism is a Heresy. It denies that we have free will among other things. Calvin was a lawyer not a Bishop. He used his logic to come to certain conclusions rather than just following the Apostles' teachings.

 

[jameslouise]

First answer the question. Or attempt to assure me of where you stand in the matter.

—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet, and particularly, what authority do they have? Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight, or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole?


I had this discussion just last night, over the phone with my son. For whatever use you may make of it, the notion of static speed of light vs variable speed of light is kind of double-talk —at least, to my mind and what I understand about physics and cosmology. The question, if one is to believe in the Big Bang and Black Holes etc, is one of perspective. To our current position, what happened 7 billion years ago may seem to have been happening at a different rate from what is happening now. But to one (supposing there was one) back then, what was happening then was happening at the same rate as what is happening now seems to us now. Let's suppose that God's point of view was/is from before the Big Bang, or better, from outside the whole business. We can only conjecture that he sees changing rates because we attribute 'reality' to 'change'. But maybe his point of view is merely of fact, not change —of 'being', not 'becoming'. Admitting my ignorance, the only answers I can draw are that the science community is inconsistent and that God is not us, and that we don't know very much.

Maybe describing this paralleling thought will help: If what we call the event horizon around a black hole (let's represent the concept of "black hole" as an ever-increasingly curved funnel (not a consistent rate cone), much like the sci-fi movies sometimes show them, or like they show the beginnings of a wormhole, but with the 'event horizon' at its rim). We can see the rim where the event horizon is the point-of-no-return border of light and matter —or so we think. Yet, can one being sucked toward that event horizon, know that he has neared it? Why would he not see what he thinks is the event horizon, "at a place farther into the funnel", as we would say from our current perspective? Are we not all from our current positions being attracted toward the nearest biggest (most influential) black hole (and for that matter, all black holes)? If reality (space-time) is shrinking toward that infinitesimal core, why do we assume stresses that would tear a spacecraft apart? From any one point of view, the spacecraft bends/stretches/compresses. But at each point along that bend/stretch/compression, the view is standard fact, and all else variance from it.

First answer the question. Or attempt to assure me of where you stand in the matter.

—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet, and particularly, what authority do they have? Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight, or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole?


I had this discussion just last night, over the phone with my son. For whatever use you may make of it, the notion of static speed of light vs variable speed of light is kind of double-talk —at least, to my mind and what I understand about physics and cosmology. The question, if one is to believe in the Big Bang and Black Holes etc, is one of perspective. To our current position, what happened 7 billion years ago may seem to have been happening at a different rate from what is happening now. But to one (supposing there was one) back then, what was happening then was happening at the same rate as what is happening now seems to us now. Let's suppose that God's point of view was/is from before the Big Bang, or better, from outside the whole business. We can only conjecture that he sees changing rates because we attribute 'reality' to 'change'. But maybe his point of view is merely of fact, not change —of 'being', not 'becoming'. Admitting my ignorance, the only answers I can draw are that the science community is inconsistent and that God is not us, and that we don't know very much.

Maybe describing this paralleling thought will help: If what we call the event horizon around a black hole (let's represent the concept of "black hole" as an ever-increasingly curved funnel (not a consistent rate cone), much like the sci-fi movies sometimes show them, or like they show the beginnings of a wormhole, but with the 'event horizon' at its rim). We can see the rim where the event horizon is the point-of-no-return border of light and matter —or so we think. Yet, can one being sucked toward that event horizon, know that he has neared it? Why would he not see what he thinks is the event horizon, "at a place farther into the funnel", as we would say from our current perspective? Are we not all from our current positions being attracted toward the nearest biggest (most influential) black hole (and for that matter, all black holes)? If reality (space-time) is shrinking toward that infinitesimal core, why do we assume stresses that would tear a spacecraft apart? From any one point of view, the spacecraft bends/stretches/compresses. But at each point along that bend/stretch/compression, the view is standard fact, and all else variance from it.

Mark Quayle asks or should that be interrogates? First answer the question. Or attempt to assure me of where you stand in the matter.
—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet, and particularly, what authority do they have? Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight, or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole

What are you banging on about? do i have to pass an interrogation test to be honored enough to debate you due to some undefined by you sensitivity? I have answered all these questions in message 145, a copy of this at end of this message.
—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet-havent even thought about that definition but predicting the future would be in it and someone with a gift of prophecy
what authority do they have? NEVER given that any thought either, not sure what you mean
First answer the question-should have a 'please' after it
Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight,-explained below in message 145, we have different definitions
or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole- don't even know what this question means?Does it contain God s written word??? no, of course not. Does it provide insight into Gods written word- absolutely. Is it equally authoritative as God's word-OF COURSE NOT. Why not check her out yourself on line? As for what I think of Kat Kerr anyway-what is that to you?
Now lets get down to business, stop messing about and swap some ideas, i would very much welcome your knowledge to test my insight.

message 145 quote from jameslouise
I do indeed also have a different interpretation of the meaning of 'revelation' and insight. I would describe both as 'a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed' (from a dictionary) And for me revelation being a'bigger'new idea then an insight. I believe I have been given insights by The Holy Spirit but never have I heard an audible voice
Mark Quayle says 'a sure knowledge, God-breathed fact concerning what Scriptures do tell us' i am not at all sure what God breathed means here so I cannot answer that.
To be clear on my definitions: (although I am not so sure why that is so important to you? ) Kerr claims she was given a vision of the first world with an water vapour shield (canopy), an atmosphere of thick mist and no sun or moon but all lit by The Glory of God. I received that claim and searched the scripture to see if it was true and every claim is backed up in scripture, I believe I received insight into certain phrases in Genesis 1 and 2 but also finally given an insight into the whole of Genesis 1 and 2 testifying to Jesus Christ by use of an exquisitely beautiful design with use a prolonged metaphor with multiple biblical and logically defined 'typing'. I would class this latter as a revelation as I would Kerr's vision. You can define them as you wish.
I am not here to defend Kat Kerr nor am I her disciple as you cynically word it, nor does she have disciples for that matter. You can call her whatever you like as for what I think of her then 'what is that to you?'

 

[jameslouise]

First answer the question. Or attempt to assure me of where you stand in the matter.

—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet, and particularly, what authority do they have? Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight, or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole?


I had this discussion just last night, over the phone with my son. For whatever use you may make of it, the notion of static speed of light vs variable speed of light is kind of double-talk —at least, to my mind and what I understand about physics and cosmology. The question, if one is to believe in the Big Bang and Black Holes etc, is one of perspective. To our current position, what happened 7 billion years ago may seem to have been happening at a different rate from what is happening now. But to one (supposing there was one) back then, what was happening then was happening at the same rate as what is happening now seems to us now. Let's suppose that God's point of view was/is from before the Big Bang, or better, from outside the whole business. We can only conjecture that he sees changing rates because we attribute 'reality' to 'change'. But maybe his point of view is merely of fact, not change —of 'being', not 'becoming'. Admitting my ignorance, the only answers I can draw are that the science community is inconsistent and that God is not us, and that we don't know very much.

Maybe describing this paralleling thought will help: If what we call the event horizon around a black hole (let's represent the concept of "black hole" as an ever-increasingly curved funnel (not a consistent rate cone), much like the sci-fi movies sometimes show them, or like they show the beginnings of a wormhole, but with the 'event horizon' at its rim). We can see the rim where the event horizon is the point-of-no-return border of light and matter —or so we think. Yet, can one being sucked toward that event horizon, know that he has neared it? Why would he not see what he thinks is the event horizon, "at a place farther into the funnel", as we would say from our current perspective? Are we not all from our current positions being attracted toward the nearest biggest (most influential) black hole (and for that matter, all black holes)? If reality (space-time) is shrinking toward that infinitesimal core, why do we assume stresses that would tear a spacecraft apart? From any one point of view, the spacecraft bends/stretches/compresses. But at each point along that bend/stretch/compression, the view is standard fact, and all else variance from it.

I found this very difficult to follow and could not understand some of it, as soon as I hear big bang i cringe. In big bang cosmogony the earth is about 8 billion years younger than the older parts of the universe but in Genesis 1 they are the same time. So i discount it completely. Did God wait around for 8 billion years or contract/dilate time.? I personally do not think he would go 'supernatural' but I appreciate this is speculation.

 

[jameslouise]

Yes, I believe Calvinism is a Heresy. It denies that we have free will among other things. Calvin was a lawyer not a Bishop. He used his logic to come to certain conclusions rather than just following the Apostles' teachings.

completely agree, well said

 

[jameslouise]

I found this very difficult to follow and could not understand some of it, as soon as I hear big bang i cringe. In big bang cosmogony the earth is about 8 billion years younger than the older parts of the universe but in Genesis 1 they are the same time. So i discount it completely. Did God wait around for 8 billion years or contract/dilate time.? I personally do not think he would go 'supernatural' but I appreciate this is speculation.

For those of you not familiar with Electric Universe model for galaxy formation, check out this picture on the top of the page here Galaxy Formation
All galaxy shapes can be formed in seconds in the lab by passing 2 Birklands currents through plasma, scaled up all galaxies could be formed in thousands of years not billions.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Yes, I believe Calvinism is a heresy. It denies that we have free will, among other things.

By labeling Calvinism a heresy, you are claiming that autonomous human free-will is an idea so crucial to the faith that denying it would effectively "undercut the very basis for Christian existence" and "destroy the unity of the Christian church" (Brown 1984, 2). Your claim is shouldering an enormous burden of proof. I genuinely look forward to interacting with it.

---

Brown, H. J. (19884). Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. "The word ‘heresy’ ... is the English version of the Greek noun hairesis, originally meaning nothing more insidious than ‘party.’ It is used in this neutral sense in Acts 5:17, 15:5, and 26:5. Early in the history of the first Christians, however, ‘heresy’ came to be used to mean a separation or split resulting from a false faith (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). It designated either a doctrine, or the party holding the doctrine, [one] that was sufficiently intolerable to destroy the unity of the Christian church. In the early church, heresy did not refer to simply any doctrinal disagreement but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ—later called ‘special theology’ and ‘Christology’."

 

[rturner76]

By labeling Calvinism a heresy, you are claiming that autonomous human free-will is an idea so crucial to the faith that denying it would effectively "undercut the very basis for Christian existence" and "destroy the unity of the Christian church" (Brown 1984, 2). Your claim is shouldering an enormous burden of proof. I genuinely look forward to interacting with it.

---

Brown, H. J. (19884). Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. "The word ‘heresy’ ... is the English version of the Greek noun hairesis, originally meaning nothing more insidious than ‘party.’ It is used in this neutral sense in Acts 5:17, 15:5, and 26:5. Early in the history of the first Christians, however, ‘heresy’ came to be used to mean a separation or split resulting from a false faith (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). It designated either a doctrine, or the party holding the doctrine, [one] that was sufficiently intolerable to destroy the unity of the Christian church. In the early church, heresy did not refer to simply any doctrinal disagreement but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ—later called ‘special theology’ and ‘Christology’."

We can start with the denial of free will. We can also put total depravity on the grill. Calvin founded his own brand of Christianity enjoyed bt intellectuals but not supported by established church doctrine handed down from the Apostles.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

We can start with the denial of free will.

So, go ahead.

We can also put total depravity on the grill.

Whoa, easy now, partner. You haven't even met the burden of proof for your first claim.

Calvin founded his own brand of Christianity enjoyed by intellectuals but not supported by established church doctrine handed down from the apostles.

Okay, now you're just biting off more than you can chew (i.e., stacking up one unsupported claim after another). Let's just stick with your first claim.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle asks or should that be interrogates? First answer the question. Or attempt to assure me of where you stand in the matter.
—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet, and particularly, what authority do they have? Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight, or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole

What are you banging on about? do i have to pass an interrogation test to be honored enough to debate you due to some undefined by you sensitivity? I have answered all these questions in message 145, a copy of this at end of this message.
—I repeat: What is a modern day prophet-havent even thought about that definition but predicting the future would be in it and someone with a gift of prophecy
what authority do they have? NEVER given that any thought either, not sure what you mean
First answer the question-should have a 'please' after it
Is what they and you consider revelation ONLY insight,-explained below in message 145, we have different definitions
or does it contain God's Word, in part or in whole- don't even know what this question means?Does it contain God s written word??? no, of course not. Does it provide insight into Gods written word- absolutely. Is it equally authoritative as God's word-OF COURSE NOT. Why not check her out yourself on line? As for what I think of Kat Kerr anyway-what is that to you?
Now lets get down to business, stop messing about and swap some ideas, i would very much welcome your knowledge to test my insight.

message 145 quote from jameslouise
I do indeed also have a different interpretation of the meaning of 'revelation' and insight. I would describe both as 'a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed' (from a dictionary) And for me revelation being a'bigger'new idea then an insight. I believe I have been given insights by The Holy Spirit but never have I heard an audible voice
Mark Quayle says 'a sure knowledge, God-breathed fact concerning what Scriptures do tell us' i am not at all sure what God breathed means here so I cannot answer that.
To be clear on my definitions: (although I am not so sure why that is so important to you? ) Kerr claims she was given a vision of the first world with an water vapour shield (canopy), an atmosphere of thick mist and no sun or moon but all lit by The Glory of God. I received that claim and searched the scripture to see if it was true and every claim is backed up in scripture, I believe I received insight into certain phrases in Genesis 1 and 2 but also finally given an insight into the whole of Genesis 1 and 2 testifying to Jesus Christ by use of an exquisitely beautiful design with use a prolonged metaphor with multiple biblical and logically defined 'typing'. I would class this latter as a revelation as I would Kerr's vision. You can define them as you wish.
I am not here to defend Kat Kerr nor am I her disciple as you cynically word it, nor does she have disciples for that matter. You can call her whatever you like as for what I think of her then 'what is that to you?'

Well, pardon me for wanting to know where you are coming from before I entangle myself in your weeds.

I am big on Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and "the 5 Solas" to include Sola Scriptura. You cringe at "BigBang". I cringe at "Prophetess" (post canon), and wonder how anyone can not understand or find it worth figuring out what is meant by "authority" in matters of revelation vs insight. You come across to me as not well-founded in Scripture. My guess from there, carries over to 'probably careless with the Word' and most likely 'careless with logic'. I don't know these things except from little indicators you have given me. But I have to say, at this point I am inclined to tell you not to waste your time trying to get me test your theories or to get me to defeat/affirm them.

But I will give you this. I have heard some who have similar theories and even entire systems, who are so sure of themselves I wonder if they are mad, delusional. You don't come across that way.

You have found something that intrigues you, so have at it. But go slow, make your logical case, with and without Scripture according to your use of it. We will see where this goes. I may or may not be able to give it the time it deserves (or at least that you deserve), but go ahead.

I found this very difficult to follow and could not understand some of it, as soon as I hear big bang i cringe. In big bang cosmogony the earth is about 8 billion years younger than the older parts of the universe but in Genesis 1 they are the same time. So i discount it completely. Did God wait around for 8 billion years or contract/dilate time.? I personally do not think he would go 'supernatural' but I appreciate this is speculation.

Ok. I just wanted to see what you thought about it. No big deal. I'm not well-versed on the subject, and wanted to get an idea where you stand. You are a long ways from being the only one who goes glassy-eyed when I talk.

 

[jameslouise]

We can start with the denial of free will. We can also put total depravity on the grill. Calvin founded his own brand of Christianity enjoyed bt intellectuals but not supported by established church doctrine handed down from the Apostles.

I like this reply a lot, you got me thinking about the word intellectual associated with Calvinism and you are right. Most of the articles i read from Calvinists have me reaching for the dictionary, and constantly rereading it. They seem to be especially 'trying' to be scholarly (written with a thesaurus in one hand and a mirror in the other-mirror mirror on the wall who is the cleverest one of all? I am). You made me wonder if this 'smug, oh lucky me, most of you aren't quite so lucky, sorry about that stance', is an intellectual trip. ' i am so clever I can understand a complicated concept of predestination' and freewill both co-existing. I chose but I also didnt chose see its easy when you are very clever and well, errr chosen.' (But I will ignore the fact that God loves everybody and wants them ALL to be saved), But not so clever after all as I have shown in the previous messages on this thread the whole concept hinges on the word 'foreknown' which i believe and I have shown clearly in message 100 with 13 references to scripture. God 'foreknew' everybody and literally not some prophetic projection
@DialecticSkeptic; Give me another meaning of Acts 17:28? (third time i have asked btw) or I plead with you not to use the word foreknow any way other than I have until you can explain it. Below is a copy of my interpretation again

For in him we live,we all the people Paul is talking to. or all mankind, are living and existing in him (God)
and move, the same people group are moving around
and have our being; the same people group are a living being. a living entity, a person in this location.
as certain also of your own poets have said, the time frame is set and it is before Jesus' arrival on earth and theirs?
For we are also his offspring. this is all because we are his (still God) offspring. ( a very strong hint about how/when man's spirit is made/ created / wrought as this word or equivalent is not used in Genesis 1)
Please note messages 100 contains 13 other verses that are consistent with this.

 

[jameslouise]

By labeling Calvinism a heresy, you are claiming that autonomous human free-will is an idea so crucial to the faith that denying it would effectively "undercut the very basis for Christian existence" and "destroy the unity of the Christian church" (Brown 1984, 2). Your claim is shouldering an enormous burden of proof. I genuinely look forward to interacting with it.

---

Brown, H. J. (19884). Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. "The word ‘heresy’ ... is the English version of the Greek noun hairesis, originally meaning nothing more insidious than ‘party.’ It is used in this neutral sense in Acts 5:17, 15:5, and 26:5. Early in the history of the first Christians, however, ‘heresy’ came to be used to mean a separation or split resulting from a false faith (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). It designated either a doctrine, or the party holding the doctrine, [one] that was sufficiently intolerable to destroy the unity of the Christian church. In the early church, heresy did not refer to simply any doctrinal disagreement but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ—later called ‘special theology’ and ‘Christology’."

How about this:
God wants everyone to be saved 1 Tim 2:4
God has got a predestination trick up his sleeve that means if he wants to anyone can be saved (like a Jedi mind trick and some)
Not everyone is saved
So conclusion: He does not want everyone saved after all or he does not use his predestination trick on everyone that he wants to be saved (conflict in logic) or something else is involved- an act of freewill and choice.

 

[jameslouise]

Well, pardon me for wanting to know where you are coming from before I entangle myself in your weeds.

I am big on Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and "the 5 Solas" to include Sola Scriptura. You cringe at "BigBang". I cringe at "Prophetess" (post canon), and wonder how anyone can not understand or find it worth figuring out what is meant by "authority" in matters of revelation vs insight. You come across to me as not well-founded in Scripture. My guess from there, carries over to 'probably careless with the Word' and most likely 'careless with logic'. I don't know these things except from little indicators you have given me. But I have to say, at this point I am inclined to tell you not to waste your time trying to get me test your theories or to get me to defeat/affirm them.

But I will give you this. I have heard some who have similar theories and even entire systems, who are so sure of themselves I wonder if they are mad, delusional. You don't come across that way.

You have found something that intrigues you, so have at it. But go slow, make your logical case, with and without Scripture according to your use of it. We will see where this goes. I may or may not be able to give it the time it deserves (or at least that you deserve), but go ahead.

Ok. I just wanted to see what you thought about it. No big deal. I'm not well-versed on the subject, and wanted to get an idea where you stand. You are a long ways from being the only one who goes glassy-eyed when I talk.

Mark Quayle says:You have found something that intrigues you, so have at it. But go slow, make your logical case, with and without Scripture according to your use of it. We will see where this goes. I may or may not be able to give it the time it deserves (or at least that you deserve), but go ahead.

Being serious, thank you for the well meaning advice, appreciated a lot as is your time given to answering me.

Mark Quayle says: You come across to me as not well-founded in Scripture. My guess from there, carries over to 'probably careless with the Word' and most likely 'careless with logic'.
We'll see about that! ATM concerning scripture and logic with the two passages we have discussed Acts 17:28 and Hebrews 9:25-26, the ball is firmly in your court and the score is currently Mark Quayle 0 Jameslouise 2. Is that all you got? Do all Americans role over this easily? You given up on those two ? You want some more? I have got lots and they will take you out of your comfort box I think? Is it too hot in the kitchen after all?
(psst- I am going to let you into a little secret but I will whisper it quietly so that not everyone hears because some will get offended, I will not name names to the same end but the Acts 17:28 passage interpretation is not originally from me but an insight given to someone else. This someone else, without any disrespect is no intellectual and yet SHE (oops shouldn't have said that) was given an insight that all your admired orthodoxy have missed-interesting)

Ps :It doesnt bother me but I know you are a stickler for grammar but 'have at it' makes no sense in England and 'long ways' should be long way with no 's'. We did invent it you know?

 

[Mark Quayle]

We'll see about that! ATM concerning scripture and logic with the two passages we have discussed Acts 17:28 and Hebrews 9:25-26, the ball is firmly in your court and the score is currently Mark Quayle 0 Jameslouise 2. Is that all you got? Do all Americans role over this easily? You given up on those two ? You want some more? I have got lots and they will take you out of your comfort box I think? Is it too hot in the kitchen after all?

"We have discussed"? Mentioned, perhaps.

Begin at the beginning, (please), as I gave them hardly a nod, and don't remember what your argument was.

(psst- I am going to let you into a little secret but I will whisper it quietly so that not everyone hears because some will get offended, I will not name names to the same end but the Acts 17:28 passage interpretation is not originally from me but an insight given to someone else. This someone else, without any disrespect is no intellectual and yet SHE (oops shouldn't have said that) was given an insight that all your admired orthodoxy have missed-interesting)

See? There you go again. Giving credence to someone's 'insight', over orthodoxy, as though orthodoxy ACTUALLY missed something —not as though they MIGHT HAVE missed something. I have 'insights' too —even epiphanies— but they are not orthodox, (even though they deny nothing orthodox), and so I suspect them. You mock orthodoxy to your discredit (to put it nicely), and I am rapidly losing interest.

But we are into it, so begin again, please, at the beginning, and leave out the cheerleading and jeers. They don't attract me to your point of view, they prove nothing and don't they don't forward your thesis.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

How about this: God wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). God has got a predestination trick up his sleeve that means, if he wants to, anyone can be saved (like a Jedi mind trick and some). Not everyone is saved. So, conclusion: He does not want everyone saved after all, or he does not use his predestination trick on everyone that he wants to be saved (conflict in logic), or something else is involved—an act of free-will and choice.

When you want to discuss Calvinism, let me know. I have no idea who believes that God has "a predestination trick up his sleeve," or that he may or may not pull that trick on everyone. I don't believe it, and I suspect you don't either, so it's a mystery as to who
you're talking to. I am waiting to discuss Calvinism, and that ... <gestures at what you said> ... is not it.

 

[jameslouise]

"We have discussed"? Mentioned, perhaps.

Begin at the beginning, (please), as I gave them hardly a nod, and don't remember what your argument was.


See? There you go again. Giving credence to someone's 'insight', over orthodoxy, as though orthodoxy ACTUALLY missed something —not as though they MIGHT HAVE missed something. I have 'insights' too —even epiphanies— but they are not orthodox, (even though they deny nothing orthodox), and so I suspect them. You mock orthodoxy to your discredit (to put it nicely), and I am rapidly losing interest.

But we are into it, so begin again, please, at the beginning, and leave out the cheerleading and jeers. They don't attract me to your point of view, they prove nothing and don't they don't forward your thesis.

'Foundation of the earth' (themelios ho ge) has a clear undisputed meaning in scripture- when the foundations of our planet were laid down Heb 1:10 but the Foundation of the world (FOTW) uses completely different words (katabole kosmos)- broadly speaking 'breaking down' and 'what adorns the earth' respectively. Why different terms? Katabole kosmos is thought to refer to Genesis days 1-6 in orthodoxy. I suggest it may refer to other events too. The Abrahamic Covenant can be considered such an event breaking down a sinful world and establishing a new foundation, a covenant for man upon the world. A katabole kosmos 'type' of event
@Mark Quayle The Hebrews passage we have discussed in message 145, I suggest, if you substitute FOTW with The Abrahamic Covenant and then Genesis 6 days of creation. Which one fits better?

Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself​

Your stance is it just means Jesus would have to have carried this out' 'often' My stance is:
It means the whole lot, a temple designed the same , blood of others the same etc
Strictly speaking sacrifices would not have to happen since the Genesis creation 6 days but until Adam fell- some indeterminate time after
I do not think Jesus can carry out any sacrificial substitution process at all in the Abrahamic Covenant is established
As Jesus would have to carry out this process from the FOTW, then when these sacrificial systems are in place is the FOTW-The Abrahamic Covenant
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Nor yet that he ( still Jesus Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (like the high priest does yearly (still often-a subset of often) and in a temple designed as described and with blood of others-the whole process as described in the preceding passage))
For then must he (still Jesus Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (FOTW) (the time these type of sacrificial practices started taking place and the covenant deal was in place) but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself

 

[jameslouise]

When you want to discuss Calvinism, let me know. I have no idea who believes that God has "a predestination trick up his sleeve," or that he may or may not pull that trick on everyone. I don't believe it, and I suspect you don't either, so it's a mystery as to who
you're talking to. I am waiting to discuss Calvinism, and that ... <gestures at what you said> ... is not it.

Dialecticskeptic asks When you want to discuss Calvinism, let me know. Now please 3 questions ( Is this one of those posts you are going to ignore or answer? Just asking?)
I have reworded the previous questions to avoid your sensitivities
1,How about this?
God wants everyone to be saved 1 Tim 2:4
God can predestine people to be saved, not to make a choice but to be actually saved. (like a Jedi mind trick and some)
Not everyone is saved.
Conclusion: God does not want everyone saved after all?
God wants everyone saved but sometimes decides not to?
There is another factor involved-human choice-I d go for this option
2 .And This?
I choose every minute of every day to be a christian, is God predestining those decisions too? Woh, that means every decision. Do I ever make a decision myself? If that is the case then I have a got a bone to pick with God for making me go for the carry on 18 when level par-3 times and failing each time . And for having that extra glass of wine at Peter Mimnagh's party that made me sick and quite a few other things too for that matter.
Or is it that we have free choice every single step of the way but God in his infinite control gives us the opportunity to be saved and never lets us be tested beyond our capability level? Wait a minute you could also class this as 'predestined to be conformed in the image of his son' a continuing care process. choice and predestination working together. You agree?
3.And this?
God likes faith, cant please him otherwise. I am sure you will agree. Why doesn't he predestine that too? That'll work. And while hes at it predestine to love Him, not lie , no killing, no false witness. etc job done, earth will be like Heaven.
The fact is that such automatons would, I believe, be worthless in the eyes of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

'Foundation of the earth' (themelios ho ge) has a clear undisputed meaning in scripture- when the foundations of our planet were laid down Heb 1:10 but the Foundation of the world (FOTW) uses completely different words (katabole kosmos)- broadly speaking 'breaking down' and 'what adorns the earth' respectively. Why different terms? Katabole kosmos is thought to refer to Genesis days 1-6 in orthodoxy. I suggest it may refer to other events too. The Abrahamic Covenant can be considered such an event breaking down a sinful world and establishing a new foundation, a covenant for man upon the world. A katabole kosmos 'type' of event
@Mark Quayle The Hebrews passage we have discussed in message 145, I suggest, if you substitute FOTW with The Abrahamic Covenant and then Genesis 6 days of creation. Which one fits better?

Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself​

Your stance is it just means Jesus would have to have carried this out' 'often' My stance is:
It means the whole lot, a temple designed the same , blood of others the same etc
Strictly speaking sacrifices would not have to happen since the Genesis creation 6 days but until Adam fell- some indeterminate time after
I do not think Jesus can carry out any sacrificial substitution process at all in the Abrahamic Covenant is established
As Jesus would have to carry out this process from the FOTW, then when these sacrificial systems are in place is the FOTW-The Abrahamic Covenant
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Nor yet that he ( still Jesus Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (like the high priest does yearly (still often-a subset of often) and in a temple designed as described and with blood of others-the whole process as described in the preceding passage))
For then must he (still Jesus Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (FOTW) (the time these type of sacrificial practices started taking place and the covenant deal was in place) but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself

I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I am confused here. Can you start with your thesis, so at least I can get where you are heading? Tell me exactly what it is that seems so important to you, (that which apparently differs from orthodoxy), even if you told me before, and maybe we can return to what you are saying here if it is first on your list toward proving your thesis.

Also, whether now or after the statement of your thesis, I need you to state precisely what you mean by "The Abrahamic covenant" and why you speak of "substitut[ing] FOTW with The Abrahamic Covenant and then Genesis 6 days of creation". To me, the sentence, or the sequence of thought, there, is not cogent. Please be slow and specific, for my simple pedantic mind. As our minds rather obviously run along different paths, I need you to make sense to me, for me to even follow what you are saying, if I am to argue against or affirm your thesis and its proofs.

Edit: If your thesis runs so close to or parallels or is the same as Kerr's, then link it again, and I will look at it. But don't let hers complicate yours. I need your thesis, not hers, and your proofs, not hers.

 

[jameslouise]

I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I am confused here. Can you start with your thesis, so at least I can get where you are heading? Tell me exactly what it is that seems so important to you, (that which apparently differs from orthodoxy), even if you told me before, and maybe we can return to what you are saying here if it is first on your list toward proving your thesis.

Also, whether now or after the statement of your thesis, I need you to state precisely what you mean by "The Abrahamic covenant" and why you speak of "substitut[ing] FOTW with The Abrahamic Covenant and then Genesis 6 days of creation". To me, the sentence, or the sequence of thought, there, is not cogent. Please be slow and specific, for my simple pedantic mind. As our minds rather obviously run along different paths, I need you to make sense to me, for me to even follow what you are saying, if I am to argue against or affirm your thesis and its proofs.

Edit: If your thesis runs so close to or parallels or is the same as Kerr's, then link it again, and I will look at it. But don't let hers complicate yours. I need your thesis, not hers, and your proofs, not hers.

Thanks for the reply mark, firstly, it all has nothing to do with Kat Kerr. .

My 'thesis' is The term foundation of the world (FOTW) does not just mean the Genesis 6 days of creation account. I believe the words katabole kosmos from which FOTW is translated can have different interpretations, I believe it applies to other events too but i am going to leave the final sting in the tail until the end. I think the use of FOTW in Heb 9:26 is an example of it referring to the Abrahamic Covenant and not the Genesis 6 creation days. A katabole kosmos type of event itself. Breaking down and re-establsihing something that adorns the earth.(those being established meanings of 'katabole' and 'kosmos)


After you have read my arguments as to why I think it refers to the Abrahamic Covenant then I was just suggesting for you to read Heb 9:26 with each of the two meanings substituted for FOTW and see which one 'fits' better for you. i am not suggesting it should be translated differently

By the Abrahamic Covenant I mean when the deal is done when God has made his promises. I believe as Abraham was going to sacrifice his son so would God 'have' to.
So here are the arguments again and you can now ignore my first post
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself
Your stance is it just means Jesus would have to have carried this out' 'often' My stance is:
1. It does mean just 'often' It means the whole lot, a temple designed the same , blood of others the same etc
2. Strictly speaking the term FOTW is before Adam sinned so sacrifices would not have to happen since the Genesis creation 6 days but until Adam fell-some indeterminate time after
3. I do not think Jesus can carry out any sacrificial substitution process at all in the Abrahamic Covenant is established
4. Jesus would have to carry out this process from the FOTW, so when these sacrificial systems as described in Hebrews 9 were in place is when He (Jesus) would have to start doing them himself I believe this is the time of The Abrahamic Covenant.
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Nor yet that he ( still Jesus Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (like the high priest does yearly (still often-a subset of often) and in a temple designed as described and with blood of others-the whole process as described in the preceding passage))
For then must he (still Jesus Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (FOTW) (the time these type of sacrificial practices started taking place and the covenant deal was in place) but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself