Just Keep Reading

@ProvisionistP Have any of the "core tenets" of gnosticism been defined yet?

This "offer" is about as sincere as the "well meant" one to the reprobate on High [5-point] Calvinism.

@residentreformr Resident aliens were allowed to participate in Israel’s religious practices. I see no reason to limit Yom Kippur to Israel, only.

The scapegoat of Yom Kippur atoned for the sins of Israel. Jesus paid for the sins of true Israel, His Church, not the whole world.

@Guitardo7 This prophecy still hasn’t been completely fulfilled. Israel’s return to the land after WW2 (the return from Babylon can be included paradigmatically) has been a good start. The below shows the criteria (and doesn’t include being unconditionally elected)

Orange: The high priest was prophesying about Him gathering other Derrik: they are already children… so that prophesy was already completed? If they were already children then that’s not a prophesy about gathering them Which it is so… Derrik is again wrong

@DPGBehler It can too easily be argued that the core tenets aren’t the same. Strong similarities and the fact that Augustine was Mannichean won’t be enough here. Whatever is argued, he will require more.

I’ve never really been on the “Calvinism is Gnostic” train, though for rhetorical purposes in some discussions I may have made reference to it to make a point. Having said that, Chris’s offer here is just as genuine as he pretends the gospel proclamation is to the non-elect in his view, and if you believe you could ever possibly satisfy his criteria to win the money, I have a bridge to sell you.

@Fletch1171 At least today there’s probably cheap tacos somewhere

This week in Calvinism: -You can't tell people that Jesus loves them. - if you believe God gives grace to the humble you are a pelagian. -Wesleyan's lock arms with cals on guilty babies, so they can dunk on provs too And it's only Tuesday

@rootcausesleuth Some days I read the quote: I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise Other days I read it: I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise. I don’t know how it should be rendered from the Greek.

@just_keep_read Ok good point

Does anyone “go to heaven” when they die? I thought the Bible talks about us living on the new earth with God. If so, why tell people that if they believe in Jesus they will “go to heaven”?

@Pastor_ChrisH I’d rather just embrace the label and move on. We know too little about him, and much of what we know of him is from his most vociferous, and intellectually kind of awful, adversary.

I presented this challenge yesterday with a real reward if it is met. It’s still open by the way. Utilizing the same criteria, does anyone want to offer the challenge when it comes to Provisionism and Pelagian/semi-Pelagian core tenets? I mean, the claim is that our saying Provisionism has some core tenet alignments with Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism is no different than saying Calvinism has some core tenet alignments with Gnosticism, right? Well, I put my money where my mouth is, are any of you willing to do the same? That is, if you truly do believe the comparison is the same. @Soteriology101, @ProvisionistP @The_Idol_Killer or anyone else who makes this comparison with the claims. Feel free to tag others.

@JLU_2016 @DPGBehler Only the sin and wrath part is taken as literally all without exception, with no justification given.

@DPGBehler It's ridiiclous to think that of all the "all"s, ""whosoever"s, "the world"s and "everyone"s that refer to for whom Jesus died, not even one of them actually mean "all", ""whosoever", "the world" and "everyone"

Yellow: Saying “Jews and Gentiles” does NOT inherently mean *some* Jews and *some* Gentiles. That’s an assumption he slips in. As someone who believes Jesus died for all, I can affirm that at times scripture has in mind Jews and Gentiles. I just don’t add a limitation to it. All without distinction is NOT mutual exclusive with all without exception. Orange: Jon forgets the context of the NT. Israel had been scattered. Jews were living in other nations. John 11:52 calls them children of God. This cant be, as the Calvinist would say, elect people God will eventually save. They are already called children. Israel was God’s son (Exodus 4:22), so this is a reference to the diaspora. Jesus was dying for the nation as well as those scattered abroad. He would bring them together into one. This was fulfilled on Pentecost.

@DPGBehler As a replacement theology guy, he won’t entertain a reference to a restoration of national Israel. The prophecy of the dry bones specifically mentions a nation being gathered from afar, but it is turned into a comment about pre-faith regeneration.

@rootcausesleuth I think it hinges on whether the thief on the cross was a unique situation or is the general case.

@just_keep_read Yeah I see both of those in scripture. I haven’t studied it enough to form an opinion.

@swamthetiber25 The below happens upon faith in Christ, but Paul talks about looking forward to when the corruptible human form takes on incorruptible, and that we will see Jesus like He is because we will be like Him. I don’t see indication that this isn’t in an instant or requires purgatory.

I had a big aha moment. Many Protestants ascribe to Luther’s philosophy of the snow covered dung. We are declared righteous- when God sees us, He sees the Son. So there isn’t a need for purgatory because you’re “covered”. Of course, as a Catholic I know this doesn’t actually solve the issue. I don’t want to just be covered. I need to be transformed. I will be completely justified AND sanctified before heaven. When God looks at me, he’ll see ME who will be reflecting the Son. I will actually be righteous, not just declared.

@Matthew56193629 @writeontheedg3 I’m not going to weigh in on this issue too much. I like younger creationism (YEC), but it’s not a dealbreaker to me. His dismissal of YEC is one of the things I don’t like about him, but I don’t throw the baby out of the bathwater.

God laid out creation week to Moses in terms of yom, evening and morning, day 1 to day 7. Yom, Day, lacking context, can mean something other than a normal 24 hour day. Yet the context is Yom, Evening and Morning, the first Day, etc for the rest of the week. And you have Jesus saying in Mark that Man was created "in the beginning". Had Man been created over millions or billions of years, by I guess assisted evolution? theistic evolution? then God would not have laid creation week out in this manner for Moses, nor would the Creator say that Man was created in the beginning. If you want to reconcile the bible to modern scientific thought, may I ask, why is that necessary?

This is just a man’s mind attempting to discern a reality far beyond our comprehension. Let’s be honest, we’re all doing this (unless we’re prideful enough to think we’ve got the expanse of time and space as relates to the Creator all figured out). I hate all the pearl-clutching over simple human wondering. I disagree with this assessment of how (multiverse) but completely agree that we co-create the world with God. Nothing Dr. Craig said is wrong or evil, though, so can we stop getting in a tizzy about people using their imagination?

@Matthew56193629 @writeontheedg3 What are you referring to, specifically?

@just_keep_read @writeontheedg3 Once you have God lying to Moses, nothing gets back in order.

@troywojick It’s tough. Sometimes it boils down to someone’s view of God (divine simplicity) and the texts become a servant of one’s philosophy.

Sometimes, I think it's very important to discuss soteriology, and other times it feels entirely pointless. Everyone just talks past each other and inside their own pre-suppositions and framework and with their definitions of the critical terms. The other side sees contradiction(s) in the entailments of that view, but when they call them out those contradictions are simply denied by the person with a different framework. I'm not sure how to get past this loop. How do we discuss these topics in good faith with a consistent biblical framework and definitions of these terms. I'm not sure there is a good answer to this, but I'm all ears.

@_jonbowlin @provisionisty There’s still not enough data to conclude limited atonement. It seems to me to be quite ridiculous to claim that from this, actually. The priest would have had Jews in mind. God gathering eludes to the dry bones prophecy, the meaning of which is highly contested, also.

@just_keep_read @provisionisty That doesn’t take anything away from what John told us

Whenever the NT authors talk about Christ dying for the world/dying for all, they are referring to Jew and Gentiles. Not each and every person ever. The Jews believed the kingdom of God to be exclusive to them and not extended to Gentiles. But Christ and the apostles turn that narrative around. We see this especially in the book of Acts. This is what the OT always taught as well but tradition had gotten in the way for the Jews. One of the clearest proof texts of particular redemption is found in John 11. Caiaphas the high priest prophesied that Christ was not only going to die for the nation Israel, but in order to bring into one, the children of God who are scattered abroad. Particular redemption is the teaching of the NT

@_jonbowlin @provisionisty

@_jonbowlin @provisionisty Caiaphas is probably worried about Rome, not God. I’m not taking any hard-line stance based on what a priest said, here.

@Pastor_Chris @Orville54310141 @Soteriology101 do those who you blocked get to claim the $2000? Here you go: Augustine (354–430) joined the Manichaeans as a “hearer” (auditor) around age 19 and remained associated for roughly 9–10 years (c. 373–382/383). Manichaeism (founded by Mani, 216–274/277 CE) was a syncretic dualistic religion with strong Gnostic elements (light vs. darkness cosmology, salvation through revelation/gnosis, ascetic liberation of divine sparks). Core relevant tenets: Radical ontological dualism: Two co-eternal, opposing principles—Light (good, spiritual, divine particles) vs. Darkness (evil, material, chaotic). The material world/body is a trap/prison for light particles after a primordial cosmic battle. Evil has substantial reality (not mere privation). Anthropology and depravity: Humans (especially the body/flesh) are mixtures of light and darkness. The “material” or enslaved person cannot freely choose the spiritual good without external divine intervention or awakening. Some language of divine election/selection of worthy souls. Soteriology: Salvation involves gnosis (revealed knowledge from Mani/Paraclete/Jesus as revealer), ascetic practices (especially for the Elect), and liberating light back to the realm of Light. Strict views on sex/procreation as trapping more light. Deterministic or unilateral elements in divine action on the “dead” or enslaved will. Election language: A preserved 392 quote from a Manichaean presbyter (cited by Augustine): “God [...] has chosen souls worthy of Himself according to His own holy will. [...] that under His leadership those souls will return hence again to the kingdom of God according to the holy promise...” Manichaeism was condemned as heretical by mainstream Christianity for its dualism (undermining creatio ex nihilo and the goodness of creation), docetic or diminished views of Christ’s incarnation, rejection of the Old Testament God in some expressions, and anti-material asceticism. Critics argue that while Augustine rejected Manichaeism’s myths and explicit dualism, residual conceptual structures, categories, and interpretive frameworks persisted or re-emerged, especially after ~396 and during the Pelagian controversy (post-412). This shaped his mature soteriology, which Calvin later systematized. Contemporary Accusations of Crypto-Manichaeism: Julian of Eclanum (Pelagian opponent, early 5th century) repeatedly charged Augustine with never truly leaving Manichaeism. He pointed to Augustine’s linkage of original sin’s transmission to concupiscence (disordered sexual desire/lust in conception) and his strong emphasis on the flesh/body as the seat of sin/evil. Julian contrasted this with a more “natural” view of desire and accused Augustine of importing Mani’s demonic/evil view of sexual generation (Manichaean myths described Adam and Eve’s creation involving demonic sexual elements). These charges were not isolated; Augustine faced “crypto-Manichaean” suspicions throughout his later career. Modern scholars (e.g., Fairbairn’s analysis of City of God and van Oort’s work on Manichaean background) note that political context (Manichaeism was outlawed under Theodosius, with severe penalties) gave Augustine incentive to distance himself rhetorically. Doctrinal Parallels in Soteriology: Total depravity / total inability / “dead will”: Post-~396 (especially Ad Simplicianum and later anti-Pelagian works), Augustine taught that fallen humanity has a liberum arbitrium captivatum (captive free will). Humans cannot initiate or choose spiritual good/faith without God’s prevenient or liberating grace that “infuses” or raises the dead will. This parallels Manichaean/Gnostic ideas of material or enslaved persons needing divine awakening/gnosis because they lack natural ability. Wilson’s research argues Augustine reverted to Manichaean-style deterministic interpretations of Scripture (e.g., Ephesians 2:8 as God regenerating/infusing faith into a dead will), which he had earlier refuted when attacking Manichaeans. Unconditional election, predestination, and irresistible/effectual grace: Augustine’s mature view (especially after engaging Romans 9 more deeply c. 396–397 and during Pelagian debates) emphasizes God sovereignly choosing the elect unilaterally according to His will/mercy, not foreseen faith or merits. Grace is effectual for the elect (they are “awakened” or regenerated); the non-elect are justly passed over or left in their sin (massa perditionis). A Manichaean presbyter’s language of God choosing “worthy souls according to His own holy will” is cited as a parallel. Later Augustine developed or implied double predestination elements. Wilson and others (e.g., analyses on Soteriology101) argue this deterministic framework—God unilaterally acting on a dead/inability-bound humanity—echoes Manichaean (and Stoic/Neoplatonic) determinism more than the libertarian free-will emphasis of most earlier Church Fathers (who opposed pagan/Gnostic determinism). Two Cities dualism in City of God: Augustine structures history as a conflict between the City of God (love of God) and the City of Man (love of self, often linked to the material/fleshly). Critics see this as retaining a dualistic framework (good/spiritual vs. evil/material-tinged) even while rejecting ontological dualism. Developmental Timeline and Shift in Augustine’s Thought: Early Augustine (pre-~396) defended free will more robustly against Manichaean fatalism (De Libero Arbitrio). His shift toward stronger predestinarianism and inability language coincides with deeper Manichaean past resurfacing in new forms under pressure from Pelagianism (which over-emphasized human ability). Scholars like Wilson (in The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism, based on his Oxford DPhil) document that no pre-412 orthodox Christian writer taught Augustine’s full package of divine determinism + total inability in this form. Earlier fathers opposed Stoic, Gnostic, and Manichaean determinism. Augustine’s later views, per this analysis, re-imported pagan deterministic categories (Manichaeism prominent among them) while Christianizing the cause (Adam’s guilt instead of matter itself). Van Oort and others studying newly available Manichaean texts (e.g., Cologne Mani Codex) have strengthened the case for lingering conceptual influence in Augustine’s rhetoric, anthropology, and soteriology. Transmission to Calvinism: John Calvin explicitly and extensively cited Augustine as his primary patristic authority on original sin, total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance. Calvin saw himself as recovering Augustinian (and thus biblical) truth against medieval semi-Pelagian tendencies. TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance) systematizes key Augustinian emphases. Critics argue this makes Calvinism “Augustinian-Calvinism” with Manichaean tributaries via Augustine’s residual categories. This body of evidence—immersion + conceptual/structural parallels + contemporary accusations + documented shift in Augustine’s thought + Wilson-style chronological analysis—constitutes the strongest case that core Calvinist tenets (especially total inability + unconditional election + effectual grace) have significant roots in Augustine’s engagement with (and incomplete escape from) Manichaean-influenced deterministic and dualistic-tinged thinking.

@BornAgainBalaky @SnarkyRevAlan I think I remember this guy from something else and I recall him being like this then, too. I don’t see good fruit from “Snarky,” here. When you’re done saying what you want to say, I’d recommended wiping the dust off your feet and moving on. His own actions speak against him.

@SnarkyRevAlan Look at my pinned tweet you absolute coward 😂 You are such a pathetic little baby dude 😂

#NewProfilePic here is this better baby boy? @SnarkyRevAlan zero AI spiderman suit lol Now are you gonna man uk and show yourself or you gonna keep showing everyone how much of beta hypocrite cowardice anon baby you are?

@BornAgainBalaky @SnarkyRevAlan That’s gotta be AI. Nobody can be this handsome.