@DrFrankTurek I personally think that the era of the Church as we know it is now in terminal decline, and good. It has not fulfilled its purpose, and to be honest small house groups would probably fulfil the role better
English
Mike
2.8K posts
What can churches do to appeal more to men and avoid hyper feminization?
English
@VinnieSull1van @BygoneBritain @PubHistoryTours The goold old days, before the hell that has been unleashed on the UK
English
Bygone Britain looks more like a holiday destination than the place we now call home. ⏳️
English
@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 What's your final authority, the WCF or the Holy Scriptures? Don't say both, as they are in opposition
English
This is a very real problem in these discussions.
@Soteriology101 , you’re smuggling in LFW as the definition of “free” and then acting like the Westminster Confession agrees with you.
WCF 9.1 says God endued the will with “natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.” WCF 9.2 says Adam in innocency “had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good… but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.”
That’s not libertarian freedom. That’s compatibilist freedom: Adam acted voluntarily according to his holy nature without external coercion. His mutability (ability to fall) was real, yet it occurred within God’s eternal decree that ordains whatsoever comes to pass (WCF 3.1) without making God the author of sin or destroying the liberty of second causes.
When we say people make “their own free choices,” we mean uncoerced choices that flow from their desires and nature, desires and nature that are themselves under the sovereign ordering of God’s decree. That is exactly the freedom the Confession attributes to Adam pre-fall and to moral agents in general.
Your question only creates a dilemma if one has already decided that the only real freedom is libertarian freedom (the ability to choose otherwise even if every prior factor, including one’s nature and God’s decree, remained the same). The Confession never grants that premise. It consistently teaches freedom as voluntariness within the scope of divine sovereignty.
So which is it? Are you critiquing the Confession on its own terms, or are you critiquing it for not matching the LFW definition you brought to the text?
Soteriology101 🩸@Soteriology101
@Orville54310141 @Pastor_ChrisH When you say “you own free choices” what do you mean? Choices in accordance with the nature/desires God determines you to have? Or free like Adam’s choice was said to be in the Westminster?
English
Prayer request!
Heading in to try and get my feeding tube installed endoscopicly here in a bit.
I am both looking forward to it (yay! I can stop starving!) And not at all (they are shoving stuff down my nose again!)
Prayers would be wonderful!
English
@Lets_Talk_HC Hayden, if you want the truth, leave Calvinism and the Gnostics well alone. They have nothing in common with the Way of Jesus Christ. Jn 3:16, too simple for the "Gnosis" crowd.
English
This makes it even worse, James. Your god glorifies itself by having people being eternally consciously tormented. It creates them knowing this will be the case. This isn’t the win you think it is.
And all you can say is “You can’t judge my god!! You need to read my books!”
Snore.
@HwsEleutheroi
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡@HwsEleutheroi
I have yet to see any substantive or even direct response from Hayden Carroll to the refutation of his past cavils. Of course, I might have just missed them. But here is another gross misrepresentation from a man who doesn't even have a god to begin with. Oh, I know, he calls a particular exalted man a "god," but that exalted man had a god before him, and that god had a god before him, and all of these "gods" are just exalted men to begin with. So, he has no one to look to to answer the questions that must be answered when we speak of theodicy. But Mormonism has no theodicy because Mormonism has no god who is the ground of all being who can then be asked, "Why?" The god of Joseph Smith was subject to external forces that shaped him, his character, even his choices. There can be no ultimate answers in his system, so it is pretty cheeky of him to be rolling out this kind of rhetoric against the "creedal god" as he likes to say. But, let's correct his many errors. God never created anyone "for the purpose of going to hell." God created all things for the purpose of the demonstration of His glory, both in the judgment of the wicked, and in the redemption of the unworthy recipients of grace. He created all things for the demonstration of all of His attributes to the entire universe. Just punishment is part of the demonstration of His holiness and justice, and every person who enters into that punishment does so justly, not because they wanted something other. Indeed, I have said many times, if you were to reach into hell 10,000 years into eternity, grab a person who is undergoing punishment, bring them out, sit them down, and give them the choice: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, or return to where you just were, every single person, without exception, would stand, spit toward the throne of God, and run as fast as they can right back into the outer darkness. There is an anthropological reason for this that we could discuss, but given Mormonism not only does not have a true god, it likewise has no biblical view of man (Adam fell "upward"), and hence, as I said last week, has no seat at the table of this discussion. Next, notice the twisted words, "literally wants certain people to go to hell." Again, Carroll cares nothing about accuracy or convincing those on the other side. This is all about emotions and clicks. He knows that most of his readers will default to the "innocent human beings being bullied by that evil Calvinist god" foolishness. He is writing for biblically illiterate people who have never sat and pondered Romans 9, or Genesis 50, or Isaiah 10 (which is why, when I invited him to discuss this two weeks ago, I posted Isaiah 10 and...got no response). He hopes his reader will see this vast ocean of equally innocent people being abused by Calvin's God, rather than recognizing that what is really being objected to here is God's freedom to grant grace to whom He wills, rather than to whom we think he must. Again, he has no real god in this situation, so it makes sense that he would go this direction. But for Christians, the issue is always "why would God ever be gracious," not "why won't God save everyone"?
English
@Lets_Talk_HC Do not believe the Gnostic Calvinists, they have been in gross error for over 2000 yrs. The Early Church Fathers fought with them their entire lives. Jn 3:16 is so simple, so beautiful and above all, the truth!
English
Why doesn’t your god regenerate me so I can believe just like you do?? 😭😭 Aren’t I totally depraved right now? Does he love you more than me?🥺
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡@HwsEleutheroi
@Lets_Talk_HC 95% of the substance you probably didn't even see, did you? Spiritual blindness works that way. And touch the Bible? Yikes, not for you! Isaiah 10? Never. You know as well as I you would never even make the attempt in the presence of prepared opposition.
English
@1984_nate 100%, what Jerry D etc. promote is pure Gnosticism, a cult that the Early Church Fathers spent most of their lives fighting against. Just like the Gnostics, Calvinists have latched onto the Way of Christ and spread their poison as they did 2000 yrs ago. Just read Jn3:16
English
People like Jerry and his theological camp are a stain on real Christianity. If you are an atheist, please understand that this theology and style of "Christianity" is NOT real Christianity.
Jerry Duckworth@jerry_duck48985
@Lets_Talk_HC Yes. God currently loves me more than you. If you repent and believe the Gospel, that may change. Who konws.
English
@ronhenzel @rootcausesleuth Taken completely out of context, as per usual
English
And yet, @rootcausesleuth,
¹⁵ For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”…
¹⁸ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.…
²² What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
²³ in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
²⁴ even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
— Romans 9:15, 18, 22-24 (ESV)
English
@jerry_duck48985 @Lets_Talk_HC In the biblical and early historic Christian faith, God’s love is an infinite, radiant sun. If a person stands in the shade, it is not because the sun has refused to shine on them or loves the person in the open "more"—it is simply that they have not yet stepped into the light.
English
@Lets_Talk_HC Yes. God currently loves me more than you. If you repent and believe the Gospel, that may change. Who konws.
English
@jerry_duck48985 @Lets_Talk_HC The idea that "God loves me more than you" sounds more like the competitive pride of the Pharisees than the humility of the Gospel.
English
@Soteriology101 It occurs to me that Calvinists like to "invent" two of everything
English
And yes I’m aware of the sad rebuttal from Calvinists who try to claim the Bible is talking about two different kinds of life, one regenerative and the other eternal, AS IF REGENERATION ISN’T ETERNAL! 🤦♂️
Where does the Bible even hint at this distinction?
English
“Come to Jesus for Life!!!”
Amen Pastor Jeff!!!
Notice he didn’t say “God will make some of you alive so that you’ll certainly come to Jesus,” which would be consistent with the Calvinistic concept of regeneration (new life) preceding faith.
When he is right, he’s right!
English
@SuitSheep This is bang smack in the middle of the Upper Room Discourse (John 13–17). Jesus is talking with His disciples. It's the disciples that were the chosen that Christ is talking about.
English
Well, I decided to go to John Calvin's source for his predestination, and read Augustine's "On the Predestination of the Saints Book 1"
Augustine begins chapter 34 with "Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,— not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe."
Augustine's prooftext is John 15:16, where Jesus says "You did not choose me, but I chose you."
Augustine derives from this, "Therefore He chose them out of the world while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world."
How about at least looking at the entire passage.
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. - John 15:16 ESV
Could this not be referring to Jesus choosing them in real-time during His ministry on Earth? Could this be Jesus choosing then and there to appoint them to go and bear fruit?
Why just quote a fragment and run with it to make a sweeping generalization that God chooses whom He will cause to believe before the foundation of the world? This is a bit of a leap.
And, it's a leap that makes me some sort of heretic I'm sure. I don't completely understand the ultimate source of where my faith came from at first. But if I don't profess to believe that I was predestined before the foundation of the world to be made so that I can have that faith, then I am a "semi-Pelagian" or something like that.
Maybe I just want to be a Christian and not an Augustinian!
My first faith happened when I was reading the bible around age 15. A very recent and popular book called "The Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey, which I read due to my interest in science fiction, motivated me to read the Bible myself and learn. Through that learning I came to my initial faith in God and Jesus Christ.
But that faith is not enough. I have to have a certain, very nuanced and extreme view of exactly HOW that faith happened in me, or I am apparently condemned by Augustine, Calvin, and a large segment of Christendom even to this day.
I can't just decide not to care and get about my day today, during my short life on Earth, trying to trust God and do what He would have me do today.
I hope that's enough for a loving God, but it's sure not enough for Augustine or Calvin.
English
Mike retweetledi
@Pastor_ChrisH Really? You're Gnostic and believe that only the "Elect" through gnosis obtain salvation. In your Gnostic system, which every Early Church Father railed against, your "god" does not love the world, even though this is the truth.
English
So weird that people believe this needs to be rebuked. Explain how it’s not biblically accurate.
Hint- the point is not that Jesus doesn’t love people or that God doesn’t love the world, so leave those strawmen at the door.
5 Solas@5Solas
The problem with saying "Jesus Loves You" in evangelism.
English
@TexasPreacher According to the Bible and the first 350 years of Christian teaching, you can look any human being in the eye and say with absolute, unqualified truth: "Jesus loves you, and He died to save you.
English
Murray's work on the "Free Offer" argues explicitly that God desires the salvation of all who hear and that this desire is grounded in love. There is warrant for telling sinners that God bears him genuine goodwill, that Christ is full of compassion toward him, and that the offer comes from love and not mere legal permission. "There is love in the heart of Christ for sinners such as you" is appropriate language.
And yet, "Jesus loves you" in modern evangelical usage usually just means "Jesus died for you savingly and intends your salvation," which is obviously problematic, and in that sense, Durbin is correct.
5 Solas@5Solas
The problem with saying "Jesus Loves You" in evangelism.
English
@TexasPreacher The tension John Murray and modern Calvinists face exists only because they try to maintain Limited Atonement alongside a desire to evangelize.
English
I've seen a lot of people criticize this, but I haven't seen a single person provide the Scripture he's asking for. Where do we see the apostles going around evangelizing with “Jesus loves you!” as their message? I have no problem saying God loves all people in a general sense, but that's not how the apostles preached the gospel.
5 Solas@5Solas
The problem with saying "Jesus Loves You" in evangelism.
English
@MethodMinistry it simply aligns them with the original, historic faith of the early Church.
English
Provisionists are radical reformers. They are heterodox. Wesleyan theology is just as opposed to it as they are to Calvinism.
Wesley even taught that if you deny Original Sin, you but a pagan still (Sermon, Original Sin).
If you deny the need for God's Prevenient Grace, then you are a Pelagian.
English
@MethodMinistry The earliest, closest disciples of the Apostles universally taught that man possesses free will, that God desires all to be saved, and that rejecting the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity does not make someone a Pelagian—
English