John Masters

Slavery is evil, and the Founding Fathers who abetted it or participated in it shared in its evil. To ignore this is to ignore history. They also promoted values which would require its abolition, a fact which the Confederates themselves recognized during their push to secede from the Union (case in point, Confederate Vice President Stephens' Cornerstone Speech railing against Jefferson). The United States is not unique in the evils it participated within. It is unique in its recognition of them as such, and to ignore this (and corollaries like the British crusade against transatlantic slavery) is to ignore history. I am not suggesting vapid chauvinism, in which we pretend that there is nothing our nation has done of which we should be ashamed. The evil that lies within men's hearts is present within every individual, every community, every society, and it is reflected in those facts of history we are loathed to look at too closely. Those facts should sober our minds, and lead us to contemplate carefully what we honor and why. They should not, however, push us into self-flagellating, nihilistic despair, losing all love of country in a vaunted effort to appear righteous for how willing we are to despoil our inheritance. Those who delve into such things have either a very conceited view of history (for self-loathing is itself just another form of self-centeredness), or are driven by a genuine hatred for this country, and give attention to its evils only as a means to denigrate it. As a matter of historical truth, our country rid itself of slavery, because the values that it was built upon made the existence of slavery in its midst a moral blight; so much so that even those who had been raised with it could see it as such (though many lacked the strength of character to act accordingly). Can we judge them for that, marking those actions as evil? Certainly. There are few things more obnoxious to me than people who respond to clear evils by historical figures they favor with the meaningless excuse, "well, they were men of their time." As someone who believes the Good is an absolute and eternal truth rooted in God Himself, that cannot be an acceptable answer. So judge all you like. So long as you do not forget the certainty of evils in the present day, which you yourself happily ignore and tolerate, both on the individual, communal, and societal level. What is revealed in this truth is not moral relativism, but Man's depravity. And in that, we all partake.

@PersonhoodDad @Jondaphemp If the actual question you are asking is whether God can strike Himself blind, either to His own future actions or the actions of His creatures, then no.

@MasteredJohn @Jondaphemp So your answer is no. He could but it would break your definition of omniscience. Is that what you are saying?

Its really telling that When you ask a calvinist a question. A simple yes or No. They want to debate it and argue it and then call you names and mock you... but they NEVER will answer the question asked. Never. Can your god add one raindrop to a storm? Yes or no?

I need more than a single word to distinguish my framing from yours when addressing the topic in order to write meaningfully about it, yes. Brevity at the cost of clarity is no virtue. That God decrees events should not be in dispute between us. As Luke records the Early Church proclaiming plainly with respect to the Atonement: (Acts 4:27-28) For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. This is simply pointing out what God already asserted through Isaiah, while distinguishing Himself from false idols: (Isaiah 46:8-11) "Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. The decree is what God has chosen to come to pass, being perfect in power and incapable of unintended consequence. I believe God when He says that all things were made by Him and for Him, that He works all things together, that Job shows truly that no evil touches Man except by His will, and no further, and that God is in Himself wholly good, pure and just. If you believe likewise, you should believe that God knew what would be wrought from His creation, that He had power over its course and outcome, that He knew all He intended to accomplish in and by His creation, and that He is not tainted by wielding the actions of wicked men for His holy purposes.

@MasteredJohn So to answer my simple Yes or no. You need 200 words to say No. Because your "decree" is what is Sovereign Not your god. Remind me chapter/verse where i can read this decree again. Where it is explicitly said in Scripture something like psalm 115.

@vrilliumlive Which verses would you cite as examples of this?

@MasteredJohn The Greek denotes a difference between jew (ethnicity) and jews (Pharisees)

Jewish and Hebrew are different things. Hebrew means Israelite, the faith of the Old Testament while jewish means talmud and rabbinical study. Protestantism is dominated by the latter.

(Romans 11:25-26) For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob." (Galatians 3:16,28-29) Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. ... There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 4:21-31) Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more numerous are the children of the desolate Than of the one who has a husband." And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman." So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

@christ621ml If Ozai didn't know about his lightning redirection and Zuko was ruthless, yes. Otherwise, no.

Do you think Adult zuko would take down fire lord ozai in an Agni Kai?

He was mid compared to the top Firebenders of the nation (in likely order of ascending power: Jeong-Jeong, Azula, Iroh, and Ozai). Zhao is called a master by Iroh, and Zuko defeats him twice, the second time after having gone through the ringer over the previous few days. While I doubt it's explicit canon, one could argue the royal family is held to a much higher standard than everyone else.

@christ621ml no the fire lord was the strongest fire bender of his generation. Zuko was always a mid firebender.

@AjWolfen @4vataruniverse I'd say they gave a decent hint at his talent, given how quickly he snaps off lightning at Zuko the very second Black Sun was over. Especially compared to Iroh and Azula.

@4vataruniverse Problem is the only thing we've seen Ozai done in the entire series is strike down a child. They chose to make him an impending threat that isn't revealed until the final season. We're not even TOLD about any of his feats. He can't even take credit for the war, that was Sozin.

How do we tell the audience Ozai is far stronger than every other firebender without embarrassing Iroh? The writers:

Pretty much any of the bending elements would be horrifyingly broken, depending on how much fine control is given over whatever is placed under the element's sphere (i.e., earthbending the minerals in bones to manipulate or crack them, or firebending freezing objects solid by tearing the heat from them). Alas, this is a kid's series. I'm honestly surprised they killed off the Earth Queen the way they did.

@MasteredJohn @paloma_datgirl They technically could remove sound, increase pressure, etc. Increasing pressure to break bones in people's body would be up there with blood bending ngl.

What other abilities does Airbending have asides this?

@Jondaphemp His lack of temperance aside, how would you address the core of his objection (that God cannot punish sins for which Christ has atoned)?

This is Bob. Bob hates Scripture. Bob is a calvinist. Do not be like Bob.

@OpStCyprian I feel like "Jew" has become that corner's version of "Fascist". It's not meant to accurately describe something, so much as to associate it with what they see as a byword for evil, or at least 'generalized bad things.'

Yes, the faith of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob is Jewish. Christianity is Jewish. Protestantism is the purest expression of Christianity.

Had a great time taking Gavin Ortlund @gavinortlund and Redeemed Zoomer @redeemed_zoomer out for Texas BBQ. Stay tuned for my interview with Gavin in a few weeks!

After that though, he writes: -"If we choose to fall into a debate about these things, and to denounce one party merely because their custom differs from that of others, the consequence must be an endless contention, in which the utmost care is necessary lest the storm of conflict overcast with clouds the calmness of brotherly love, while strength is spent in mere controversy which cannot adduce on either side any decisive testimonies of truth." The context of this being (if I have read and understood the letter correctly) that an individual argued the Church ought always to fast on the Sabbath, and by his argument essentially condemned the whole Church in one way or another, and was Scripturally-unsound besides. Augustine does plainly argue for churches' authority to make regulations in regards to what is proper, and that is not something I have any principle objection to (nor can you, even in the most congregationalist sort of ecclesialogy), hence the section you quoted. But my question is whether the a church can change the depth or severity of a transgression, making what is not a sin, sin, or what was once a sin, a sin no longer. It is one thing to assert that you should obey the guidance of your church officers, that disobedience to them is a sin unless their orders are sinful, and that stubbornness in that disobedience reflects an unregenerate heart. To make an analogy, one may disobey the magistrate in a regulation governing something immaterial in itself, and by stubborn disobedience, commit a greater transgressions with commensurately greater consequences. But a *just* magistrate, if he is not legislating new laws, is presumably working from a consistent framework that does not punish more or less than is appropriate from the beginning. Augustine, throughout the letter, is making arguments from Scripture, and as he does so, comes to the following conclusions regarding the Old and New Testaments on fasting: -"But God did not lay down a rule concerning fasting or eating on the seventh day of the week, either at the time of His hallowing that day because in it He rested from His works, or afterwards, when He gave precepts to the Hebrew nation concerning the observance of that day...In this question, however, of fasting or not fasting on the seventh day, nothing appears to me more safe and conducive to peace than the apostle's rule: Let not him that eats despise him that eats not, and let not him which eats not judge him that eats: Romans 14:3 for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse; 1 Corinthians 8:8" Again to your point, he asserts people should submit to the custom and governance of their church: -"Since, however, it happens, especially in Africa, that one church, or the churches within the same district, may have some members who fast and others who do not fast on the seventh day, it seems to me best to adopt in each congregation the custom of those to whom authority in its government has been committed. Wherefore, if you are quite willing to follow my advice, especially because in regard to this matter I have spoken at greater length than was necessary, do not in this resist your own bishop, but follow his practice without scruple or debate." But from this, would we say that Augustine believes that something may be in itself a grave and mortal sin in one jurisdiction which destroys the grace of justification and leaves the Christian soul in danger of hellfire, and in another place a wholly unobjectionable thing, or perhaps even an active good. Would not such a framework be horribly schizophrenic and caustic to the unity of the Church? I have not read nearly enough of any of the Church fathers to answer that question. For my part, I would say it is plainly a sin to disobey the officers of the Church, when what they order is not contrary to the testament of Scripture. Christians should be no less submissive to ecclesial authority than secular, in this regard. But such disobedience is a sin in itself, not because of the object of the regulation being disobeyed. No church has the right to say, "on Wednesday, the eating of shrimp shall be an abomination that damns you, on Thursday, a minor transgression that wounds you, and on Friday, a good deed that shortens your grandfather's tenure in purgatory." It may be unfair to draw that comparison, but truthfully, I see little difference in the principle being asserted.

@MasteredJohn @sincead33 @redeemed_zoomer @SensitiveManlet @not_our_guy Augustine's Letter36 to Casulanus may claim something akin to it, "For in those things concerning which the divine Scriptures have laid down no definite rule, the custom of the people of God, or the practices instituted by their fathers, are to be held as the law of the Church."

“You used to go to hell for eating meat on Fridays, but 60 years ago the Pope decided that eating meat on Fridays is no big deal actually. Sucks for anyone who went to hell for doing it before, but what can you do? I love the 2000 year old unbroken tradition of the Church”

@PopePiusXIIStan The prohibition on pork was lifted in reflection of the opening of the commonwealth of Israel to the Gentiles. New revelation unfolded to beautiful effect, as that element of the Law found fulfillment. What other than whim or convenience explains the example Zoomer refers to?

If you lived in Jesus' time, it was wrong to eat pork. It's not now. So, commandments and thus sin can change.

@sincead33 @redeemed_zoomer @SensitiveManlet @not_our_guy In keeping with Zoomer's example, such that sin is defined by the Church and can be changed by the Church, making her a legislator of God's law? I would be curious to see which fathers argued that. The Pharisees at least claimed that their oral tradition came from Moses.

@redeemed_zoomer @SensitiveManlet @not_our_guy Heresy, according to the Fathers, is quite literally a rejection of the teaching of the Church.

@Degenwillape There is a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified, such that Christ can call the wine both His blood and the fruit of the vine, and by which we partake of Him when we receive the elements in faith.

Does “is” mean is?

Has this Pope ever called non-Christians to faith and repentance, warning them of the judgment that is to come?

Paul is giving pastoral advice in anticipation of persecution. Look at the preceding verse: (1 Corinthians 7:26-28) I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

Can someone pls explain this Bible verse to me like I’m a 3 year old?