Corbin Dallas

Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity, Book II, Ch 11 Clearly misinterprets Genesis 18-19. He claims three angels represent the Trinity (not One represents the Son!). Para. 21 he doesn't hold the heiarchy of the two angels in Sodom being below the One worshiped by Abraham.

"Moreover, the mind of demons, created by God, possesses by nature its faculty of reason. But we do not hold that its activity comes from God, even though its possibility of acting comes from Him; one could with propriety call such reason an unreason." Gregory Palamas, The Triads

@inscripturated @Soteriology101 @YourCalvinist Specificity is critical here. Does man inherit the following: [A] mortality, [B] inclination to sin, [C] corruptible nature, and [D] inherited guilt? Typically [D] is the point of contention in sin nature. The others are better understood as "mortal nature," not "sin nature."

@Soteriology101 @YourCalvinist When you’re an anti-Calvinist hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Please OH PLEASE define what you both mean by “sinful nature” before this debate, otherwise you’ll be arguing past each other the entire time. 🙏

@JimVanSage @rootcausesleuth Gavin, Keith Foskey is stating to Leighton Flowers that your position in the debate is that no inclination to sin whatsoever is inherited. Are you affirming [A] a lack of corruption and a lack of inclination to sin or [B] simply that no one is born guilty?

Debate Date is set! Keith Foskey @YourCalvinist and I will be discussing inherited sin nature. Saturday May 30th, 7 pm Eastern

@DavidSchrock "Evangelical Christians join with the Eastern Orthodox Church in affirming the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity" No. Different Trinity model and different divine simplicity. We went East to return to the early Christian understanding. The West innovated!

New week. New @Christ_OverAll essay. See link below. 👇

Heavily tax cigarettes, alcohol, vapes, weed, gambling and porn, and remove All income tax

Caesarius of Nazianzus, 4 Dialogues, Dialogue IV, Question 197: he says "Israel" in Romans 9-11, including 11:26, are those through purity of mind and through faith, see God. Jacob receives the name Israel (Gen. 32) with this meaning. Christ is the Shepherd over this "Israel".

@Soteriology101 @TurretinFan Doctrines are downstream from metaphysics. 2 systems can utilize identical Scriptures with wildly different doctrines because the foundational assumptions are distinct. If the Reformed had a more pre-/pro-Nicene divine simplicity understanding , their interpretations would change

If you can’t tell the difference between God shaping for an ignoble purpose an already marred lump of clay that refused to repent despite His loving patience (Jer 18; 2 Tm 2:20; Rm 9:22; 10:21; 11:20-23; 32) and God creating it already marred with no real control over its choices—you’re blinded by tradition. I can’t help you.

How many times will this account paraphrase Romans 9:19… Romans 9:19 (KJV) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

@bannedpastor Christians are synergists and have been from the beginning. 6th Ecumencial Council upholds Synergism. Why post from a loser "sect" website? In the debate, you said at 1:42:10: "I'm not a Calvinist. I believe in free will." That's an orthodox (small-O) thing to say.

John Calvin So, we know that the Word of God has been from the beginning, Who is our God. And how do we know that? Certainly we could not reach so high. And yet God has descended to us, even God with His Word, in such a way that we can know Him, although our senses do not extend so far and we cannot ascend above the clouds, we are constrained to know that this Word is really God. How so? Because all things were made by Him. So it is in Him that all things have been. The Apostle to the Hebrews puts it, “Let us confess that the Word of God is eternal.” Why so? Because by this Word all things were made.

@writeontheedg3 @RealFletch17 Terrestrial Beings

@RealFletch17 3

What are aliens 1-extraterrestrial beings 2-demons 3-something else

@King_With_Me_ @Pastor_ChrisH You can go deeper. Christians in the first 4 centuries affirm the Son Himself condescended to meet with Abraham in his tent at Mambre, the Son spoke with Moses face to face, & the Son wrestled with Jacob. Under Calvinism, these interpretations violate absolute divine simplicity.

@Pastor_ChrisH There is no reason to assume Calvinism is true but you still seem to not get it.

I have t always been this strong against open theism (dynamic omniscience or whatever label you prefer), but it truly does result in a god entirely different from the God of classical orthodoxy. There is no reason to assume that the god of open theism will keep any promise. Yes, open advocates will point to his love and promises and unchanging character, but once you alter one fundamental attribute (God’s knowledge), then the rest of them are fair game as well.

@JkrGuidoSSO27 If only it were this decade. Big wins for Reform Party

Shock of my life reading this

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth "so loved you as to give His Son for slaves, and ungrateful slaves." "He who gives life to others, much more to Himself does He well forth life" “The lover and the beloved should no longer be two persons divided, but in a manner one single person.”

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth > "ADS is a 5th-century innovation." > Cites a LATE 4th, 5th-century father. And these don't support your claim; you just linked his homilies from the most famous "love" passages. God freely gives Himself to undeserving men; zero mention of participatory self-giving communium.

Why does 5 pt Calvinism teach that God works ALL things (all meaning every single one) when they also say that Jesus died for ALL people doesn’t mean every single one?

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth Chrysostom Homily 33 1 Cor: tinyurl.com/ym5jk299 Homily 27 on the Gospel of John: newadvent.org/fathers/240127… Now, demonstrate Absolute Divine Simplicity anytime before the 5th-century.

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth What an interesting debate. If only it were a debate we were having. Demonstrate that your definition of agape is that of the early Christians.

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth I'm giving you Reformed scholar, Philip Schaff's whole early Church collection: tinyurl.com/4wadr6cu His footnote 557 shows point A) to be well recognized academically. You were looking in the wrong century on B) so Schaff should be able to help you get Nicene and Post-Nicene

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth A) No. But that was just a red herring when your first argument fell flat. B) I could be illiterate, that wouldn’t make you right. Make the argument. James Dyer-ing “have you even read ___?” is not an argument.

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth A) So you agree, ADS emerged in the 5th-century as an innovation and is not the historic Christian divine simplicity? You've never rejected this point. B) Do you read Chrysostom, Athanasius, Hilary, Clement, Jerome, Cyril, etc.? Is your only use of Irenaeus fake Calvin memes?

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth A) ADS makes the agape point worse. Under ADS, no single attribute generates independent obligations. B) Demonstrate that this is the early church's understanding. From my search, "participatory self-giving communion" resembles 20th-century relational/personalist theology.

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth Point A) undercuts the metaphysics at the foundation of your Confession, so your opinion on B) is of little weight except to identify another point of "failure to reform" to early Christian understandings of Greek terms.

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth B) I dispute that this is the proper understanding of agape and do not grant your definition.

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth A.) ADS is not original Christian divine simplicity. It's a 5th-century innovation that the 1689 2LCF embeds in its Ch 2 Trinity model. B.) Selective divine willing in salvation is difficult to reconcile with agape's proper understanding: participatory self-giving communion

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth “Agape” is doing too much work here. If you define love as being necessarily universal in application per its ontology then sure, but ADS requires us to define something such as love per the the divine nature not against it, so ADS cuts the other way.

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth Under UE, God elects E and not R. Within strong ADS (operations are identical w essence/act), election is wholly in God. If both God’s nature is agape and deterministic soverignty, it pressure towards universalism. Yet, not all are saved. Therefore, voluntarism can fill the gap.

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth You’ve explained that voluntarism relates to your Neoplatonic accusation, but I’m asking you to connect the dots and explain it. You introduce concepts and appeal to a relation. I’m looking for elaboration. It’s okay if you’re uninterested. I’m not entitled to your time.

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth I've answered every question with precision, including voluntarism. If the initial critique is still being missed then there's an I.Q. deficit to go along with the character deficit. In this conversation, I never tried to deceive you once. Can you say the same?

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth You still have not articulated how voluntarism as a metaethical stance plays into this question of soteriology. All of this--however--is irrelevant to your original comment, which affirmed that a comic book character has power that God doesn't.

@Ethan_G1689 @rootcausesleuth When combining a deterministic soverignty, absolute divine simplicity, unconditional election, and God's nature is "agape" (Reformed affirm all of these), there is great pressure to rely upon voluntarism (often unconsciously) for doctrinal consistency.

@chess_over @rootcausesleuth I'm confused as to how voluntarism plays into this, as this is not directly a moral matter, but a metaphysical one. There's a tenuous relation, sure-- but it misses the heart of the divide. Could you please elaborate?