-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
History disagrees with you.
I was born and raised RCC, was saved at 16, stayed RCC for 4 years, just-couldn't, became Arminian for 10-20 years, just-couldn't-anymore, and then became Reformed. Tell anyone who knows me that I'm Catholic and you'd get this look of surprise on their face, followed by hearty laughter. And that, even from my family who is still RCC. Just because you are born into a religion doesn't tell the rest of the story, and you knew that all along.
Kind of like blaming Christians on Hitler because he was Catholic. It's a silly game with no purpose other than you think you look good doing the pointing. Nope, the word is "silly," not "good."
(This was originally a poll for Calvinists, but the haters got to hate like Pharisees.)
I was born and raised RCC, was saved at 16, stayed RCC for 4 years, just-couldn't, became Arminian for 10-20 years, just-couldn't-anymore, and then became Reformed. Tell anyone who knows me that I'm Catholic and you'd get this look of surprise on their face, followed by hearty laughter. And that, even from my family who is still RCC. Just because you are born into a religion doesn't tell the rest of the story, and you knew that all along.
Kind of like blaming Christians on Hitler because he was Catholic. It's a silly game with no purpose other than you think you look good doing the pointing. Nope, the word is "silly," not "good."
(This was originally a poll for Calvinists, but the haters got to hate like Pharisees.)
dear Max,
i hope you know i hold you in high esteem, and stand in awe of your abilities regarding logic and reason. i am, perhaps, the most illogical creature!
buuuut... since we're picking at nits
o), i thought you might like to know (because it's something i would like to know) we're not er, renting the faith.
not 'tenant', but rather tenet: a principle, belief, or doctrine, not to be confused with Tennant, that guy who played Doctor Who.
with love in Christ,
your sister, the grammar nazi
(yes, in spite of my apparent inability to capitalize, lol)
i hope you know i hold you in high esteem, and stand in awe of your abilities regarding logic and reason. i am, perhaps, the most illogical creature!
buuuut... since we're picking at nits
o), i thought you might like to know (because it's something i would like to know) we're not er, renting the faith.not 'tenant', but rather tenet: a principle, belief, or doctrine, not to be confused with Tennant, that guy who played Doctor Who.
with love in Christ,
your sister, the grammar nazi
(yes, in spite of my apparent inability to capitalize, lol)
You are my friend, as well as my sister in the Lord, and it's appropriate to be respectful of, and appreciate for, the brethren.
2. I'm not going to attack Calvinism here, I'm just going to nitpick a few points of logic...
and how, in this particular debate, we often use straw men without realizing it.
3. Although your testimony is moving, and powerful, and we SHOULD be using our personal testimonies in both our witnessing and our counseling... that does not mean some PARTICULAR POINT of your testimony makes a good PROOF for some particular little thing.
This isn't a matter of appreciating your testimony... this is a matter of logic, and whether or not some particular point of your testimony supports some particular point of this debate.
We all need to be careful of this...
myself included.
4. The point:
The final conclusion to your testimony, though very powerful and meaningful, makes a couple of logical errors in its "application" to this debate.
This is not to say I don't appreciate your testimony... this is just a matter of logical application to a particular debate point.
The issue:
When you state the reason you became reformed is because "I knew I never could have ever saved myself," ... although this is an important tenant of the christian faith, it cannot be applied, in this context, to this debate.
Why?
Because the other side of the debate ALSO believes the same thing.
It's like saying you became reformed because you believe in wearing socks and shoes...
but if you looked more closely, you'd see the other side also wears socks and shoes.
In this particular debate, your point carries no weight of logical necessity.
You don't have to be reformed to believe you cannot save yourself.
Most christians, who are evangelical, all believe the same.
Logical necessity cannot uphold the point "I became Reformed because of ABC" when the other side also believes in ABC.
This is a straw man.
It is a straw man, and a fair sized presumption, to assume the other side does NOT believe God alone saves them.
This is a classic straw man in this centuries old debate.
I know you are an honest person, and you don't intentionally set up straw men... but in theology, we all hear the straw men, and we sometimes have the straw men beaten into us... and we often use them without even thinking about it.
What the other side actually believes... dealing with the straw man:
Regarding this point about the other side believing the same thing: It is certain that, in traditional Arminianism, people DO believe they can lose their salvation... implying they "keep" their own salvation, and thereby implying they esentially "earn" their own salvation.
However, in the modern era, this is NOT what most "non calvinists" believe at all. And most people labeled as "Arminian" are NOT Arminian... this is just a label thrown on them.
I know VERY FEW evangelicals who actually hold to the Arminian view that they can lose their salvation. Labeling all non-calvinists as Arminian is a huge error, and is itself an act of setting up another straw man.
Conclusion: what has happened here?
1. By using a traditional straw man about the "other side's" beliefs, we create one particular distinction which DOES NOT REALLY EXIST, and then, on the grounds of this straw man distinction, we can easily claim "logical necessity" as the reason for choosing sides.
2. However, all of this is built not upon reality, but upon a straw man.
3. I am not accusing Angela of anything intentional or unethical. I think we use a plethora of straw men, CONTINUALLY, on BOTH SIDES of the Calvinist/Arminian debate... and we hear them so often we use them without thinking.
4. Let everyone take notice: if a good Christian woman like Angela, who is highly intelligent, and highly educated, and of good character, can make an occasional logical slip regarding these traditional straw men... then I think the rest of us are apt to do far worse, and we should be very careful in our reasoning.
====================================================
you've topped yourself, Max...
amazing!
D
And teaching some more outside of the Bible. Where are you getting this? Because were Adam and Eve supposed to die, or was it part of the punishment for their sin?
In truth, you've been taught a lot of junk by whoever. (Probably people who considered themselves pastors, even though, obviously, they didn't have a grasp of scripture.) We're all taught a lot of junk along the way, but we're supposed to be studying the scripture to pick out the junk and trash it. When are you going to get to that point?
And, if you're going with "I do study the Bible," then show me where babies are innocent and the wages of sin is spiritual death, not physical death.
(Don't worry. Not holding my breath. Feel free to take months of research to try and prove either, because you won't be able to. BUT, at least, you'll be learning something of God's word on your own rather than accepting the junk being given to you.)
In truth, you've been taught a lot of junk by whoever. (Probably people who considered themselves pastors, even though, obviously, they didn't have a grasp of scripture.) We're all taught a lot of junk along the way, but we're supposed to be studying the scripture to pick out the junk and trash it. When are you going to get to that point?
And, if you're going with "I do study the Bible," then show me where babies are innocent and the wages of sin is spiritual death, not physical death.
(Don't worry. Not holding my breath. Feel free to take months of research to try and prove either, because you won't be able to. BUT, at least, you'll be learning something of God's word on your own rather than accepting the junk being given to you.)
D
Please read all the verses right before that it's talking about spiritual death and spiritual life. Well unless you think you are never going to die and live forever on this earth
Romans 6:22-23
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:22-23
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
D
Semipelagian. Not much different. (We actually don't have to look up the words, or we wouldn't be using them in the first place.) All in all, you believe there is more than one way to God. You can get to him through Jesus or by being sinless. You might have "babies are innocent" as a third way. Often hard to count how many ways Pelagians and semipelagians have. What they really have in common is the belief some, or all, humans will make it to heaven by their own abilities, bypassing God all together. (And bypassing him in two ways -- that Jesus is the only way, and that heaven, not God, is the goal.)
I would but I just don't know him well enough...Guess I'll have to read up on him, and see what he's all about. Apparently there are more than just two extremes...Must be like extreme north, south, east, and west...I guess...but believe me when I say I don't want to follow any of those folks and end up on any one of those extremes. Just like Paul who didn't go chasing after the disciples, first thing, to ask them what to do. He said immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood.
I like the strait and narrow path myself...
Apparently there are more than just two extremes...Must be like extreme north, south, east, and west...I guess...but believe me when I say I don't want to follow any of those folks and end up on any one of those extremes. Just like Paul who didn't go chasing after the disciples, first thing, to ask them what to do. He said immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood. I like the strait and narrow path myself...