Sjchad

11.4K posts

Sjchad

Sjchad

@stevenjay84

Husband and Father

Utah เข้าร่วม Kasım 2022
2K กำลังติดตาม1.1K ผู้ติดตาม
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@BeeW1736886 @raulofmustachio @dortner1 @ThoughtfulSaint The issue is that the doctrine implies we are all created in a fallen or evil condition, and without the ability to participate or choose, salvation is entirely God’s decision—meaning He chooses only some to be saved while others are left in that state.
English
0
0
0
4
Bee W
Bee W@BeeW1736886·
@stevenjay84 @raulofmustachio @dortner1 @ThoughtfulSaint If these people were created to be evil then their very instinct would be to reject and hate God. They would not want to be saved. Its more loving to give them what they want because and eternity with God would be an eternity of torture.
English
1
0
0
13
Thoughtful-Faith
Thoughtful-Faith@ThoughtfulSaint·
Does James White worship a different Jesus? “God has the perfect right to do with His creation (including men)… sinners upon whom God’s wrath comes… they are said to have been specifically “prepared for destruction.” That is their purpose.” - James White
English
15
3
127
5K
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@JoshuaSwin32372 @LukeFHan Not often, which is why the LDS view of salvation is typically much broader than that of other faiths.
English
0
0
0
1
St3pL1ghtly
St3pL1ghtly@JoshuaSwin32372·
@stevenjay84 @LukeFHan I'm asking if you think anyone who understands the gravity of salvation would ultimately turn away?
English
1
0
0
7
Luke Hanson
Luke Hanson@LukeFHan·
As far as I can tell the go-to Calvinist response to criticism of their theology is: "you misrepresented me! Sure you presented my theology correctly, but you framed it as a bad thing when it's actually a good thing!"
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡@HwsEleutheroi

Reference to the "where was that in the book?" issue from Friday night. I was able to get the audio transcribed and then look up the reference in The Potter's Freedom. First, the exchange: Hansen: But let's go on to the diff the next question. In your book The Potter's Freedom, you said quote God has the perfect right to do with man as he wishes, just as the potter has utter sovereignty over the clay. Some are sinners upon whom God's wrath comes. They are said to have been specifically prepared for destruction. That is their purpose. Now with these with any of these individuals. White: Is that is that is that a is that a quote without any dots in it There are some buttons. There are some that okay so they're coming from different places. That's fine. Hansen: You you can correct what's wrong here, but this is the question in the right. That's right. Well that's fine. No no I don't think so. This up and put it online for everyone to see. Is there anything that those individuals who were prepared for destruction and that's their purpose is to be destroyed? Is there anything that those individuals could ever do to be saved? White: The those who are specifically chosen to glorify God in their rebellion would never want to do anything. And in fact In fact, God keeps them from doing worse things. He limits their sin. He doesn't have to, but he does for his purposes So they would never want to do anything else. So see, you have the idea that mankind just has this freedom to choose or do this or that other thing. rather than the scriptures teaching that we are dead in sin until we're raised to life. Now do you have a page number that you that I could uh look up that from? Hansen: Um I'm gonna go on to the next question. Original context from The Potter's Freedom, starting on page 213 (Kindle edition anyway): Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:21-24) The Potter's freedom pulses through these words, flowing inexorably into the sea of sovereignty, rushing any would-be proponent of free will out of its path. God has the perfect right to do with His creation (including men) as He wishes, just as the Potter has utter sovereignty over the clay. Just as God had demonstrated His wrath and power by wasting idolatrous Egypt, so too He demonstrates His wrath upon "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Are these nations? Classes? No, these are sinners upon whom God's wrath comes. They are said to have been specifically "prepared for destruction." That is their purpose. Why are there vessels prepared for destruction? Because God is free. Think about it: there are only three logical possibilities here.2 Either 1) all "vessels" are prepared for glory (universalism); 2) all "vessels" are prepared for destruction; or 3) some vessels are prepared for glory and some are prepared for destruction and it is the Potter who decides which are which. Why is there no fourth option, one in which the pots prepare themselves based upon their own choice? Because pots don't have such a capacity! Pots are pots! Since God wishes to make known the "riches of His grace" to His elect people (the vessels prepared of mercy), there must be vessels prepared for destruction. There is no demonstration of mercy and grace where there is no justice. The vessels of wrath, remember, like being vessels of wrath, would never choose to be anything else, and they detest the vessels that receive mercy. Indeed, during the writing of this book I encountered an unbeliever who, upon hearing me mention the wrath of God, mocked and said, "Ah, yes, the wrath of God! I LIKE IT!" This is the attitude of the vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. God's wonderful grace will be praised throughout eternity because of the great contrast between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy. Why? Because the only difference between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy is the sovereign grace of God that changes the heart of the rebel sinner and turns him from being a God-hater into a God-lover. This is why there is no basis for man's boasting, ever. ======== Just a quick observation: The quotation is taken from commentary on Romans 9, specifically, and the following text actually answers the question Hansen then asks based on the citation! It was so sadly obvious that Hansen had no intention of accurately representing the material he was quoting, and he gave no evidence at all that he had read it, let alone understood it.

English
11
2
118
3.6K
Darin Bracy
Darin Bracy@BasicBaptistGuy·
Thanks to @ThoughtfulSaint for making it clear that Mormons and Christians do not worship the same God I am not Calvinistic and I do not have to be to see that Jacob has a low view of the Creator Man centric emotionally based Mormonism is dysfunctional to its core. @HwsEleutheroi
English
12
0
14
4.6K
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@JoshuaSwin32372 @LukeFHan Yes, we do. We often make choices that go against our own best interests. Sometimes God asks us to sacrifice things about ourselves that we’re not willing to let go of.
English
1
0
0
5
St3pL1ghtly
St3pL1ghtly@JoshuaSwin32372·
@stevenjay84 @LukeFHan Do you think anyone who truly understands the magnitude of that grace would turn away from it?
English
1
0
0
5
Bee W
Bee W@BeeW1736886·
@stevenjay84 @raulofmustachio @dortner1 @ThoughtfulSaint Yes I would like for you to explain. Because from what you gave me in scripture would do nothing against his goodness if this were true. For the record I do not believe that he designs certain people to be evil however I do not see how that would make God evil if he did
English
1
0
0
14
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@JoshuaSwin32372 @LukeFHan It’s not about an obligation He owes us, but a gift freely given to all because of His nature. We simply believe He won’t force anyone to accept that gift.
English
1
0
0
6
St3pL1ghtly
St3pL1ghtly@JoshuaSwin32372·
@stevenjay84 @LukeFHan That's honestly the most balanced and earnest response I've ever gotten on X. Genuinely, thank you. Do you think that God owes grace to anyone?
English
1
0
0
6
Darin Bracy
Darin Bracy@BasicBaptistGuy·
@ThoughtfulSaint @HwsEleutheroi Sad that you see this as a good thing. God judges those greater who have been given the light and still want the darkness. John 3:19-21
English
3
0
4
379
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@Lets_Talk_HC After that debate performance, all credentials are now in question.
English
0
0
0
8
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@JoshuaSwin32372 @LukeFHan You’re right—that’s the most common defense. The issue is that we reject your interpretation because it results in a view of God that is evil.
English
1
0
0
7
St3pL1ghtly
St3pL1ghtly@JoshuaSwin32372·
@LukeFHan The best defense for Calvinism is the Bible
English
1
0
2
110
I am... Batman!
I am... Batman!@MikeMummy40·
@Darb_Seyah777 I never thought I'd see members and believers promoting hoarding compulsively Wild times. Go teach your missionaries to not talk on politics too and avoid it although Christ is teem for a political leader of the time.
I am... Batman! tweet media
English
3
0
1
61
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@GoWithJordan_ @Mormonger The disagreement is with your interpretation of scripture, which results in a view of God that is evil.
English
0
0
1
8
GoWithTheGospel
GoWithTheGospel@GoWithJordan_·
@Mormonger When you disagree with what God has said in his word, im gonna go with God over you. Is your conscience in line with God's revelation? I submit that it is not. You are the objector in Romans 9.
English
3
0
0
55
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
Standard for GOOD 1 Corinthians 13:4–7 – Love is patient, kind, selfless, and truthful Micah 6:8 – Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly Matthew 7:12 – Treat others as you want to be treated James 1:27 – Care for the vulnerable, remain morally pure James 3:17 – Pure, peaceful, gentle, merciful, impartial Romans 12:9–21 – Love sincerely, reject evil, do good to all (even enemies) Galatians 5:22–23 – Love, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control James 4:17 – Doing the good you know to do Standard for EVIL Ezekiel 18:23 – Not desiring death; destruction is contrary to God’s will Ezekiel 33:11 – God desires the wicked to live, not perish James 4:17 – Failing to do good when able is sin James 1:13 – God does not cause evil Habakkuk 1:13 – God does not approve of evil Isaiah 5:20 – Calling evil good is itself evil Galatians 5:19–21 – Hatred, harm, selfishness, division Proverbs 6:16–19 – Pride, lying, harming innocent, causing division 1 Corinthians 13:5–6 – Self-seeking and delighting in wrongdoing Seems like a good start.
English
1
0
2
12
Bee W
Bee W@BeeW1736886·
@stevenjay84 @raulofmustachio @dortner1 @ThoughtfulSaint Even if what you are saying is correct that does not mean that God is evil. God is the one who determines what is good, not you. If he is the creator of this universe then he makes the rules whether we like the rules or not. And we do not get to apply our rules upon him.
English
1
0
0
26
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@HwsEleutheroi Because James White gets to determine LDS orthodoxy.
English
0
0
0
35
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡
For all the bots and teens who have been opining about a topic they know nothing about: this evening on the Dividing Line we will be discussing last Friday's debate, contrasting it with serious interlocutors, providing examples of "Neo-Mormonism," and maybe even reading a few of the wild comments made in this thread. Looking at 9:30pm EDT (6:30pm in Phoenix).
English
15
2
30
6.7K
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡
Quick note on the debate last night against Jacob Hansen, neo-Mormon/Oslerite. I used one term during the debate a number of times, and repeated it with almost every person I talked to afterward while greeting folks: reprehensible. “deserving censure or condemnation.” Irresponsible. Dishonest. And in this case, based upon a clear and obvious prejudice, bias, and animosity, not so much toward me, but toward “Calvinism.” His opening statement was, quite honestly, below Dave Hunt. Seriously. And for those who listened to the debate review we did with Joe Heschmeyer, that was truly surprising. Hansen is smart. He was prepared to address the Papacy. But last night? Nothing but emotional mud slinging. All the standard heart-string pulling “oh its about the babies” tripe that you can find in any corner of YouTube. And the entire night the man did not raise a single verse that I had not addressed, fully, in _The Potter’s Freedom_ a quarter century ago. Yet he did not give the slightest evidence of knowing what I had written, though he quoted from the book. I am convinced Hansen’s “crew” put most of his notes together. At one point he “quoted” Aaron Shafovaloff (who was seated in the back row) and Aaron literally interrupted him, “I never said any such thing.” Before the cross ex Hansen asked to have time to apologize and admitted the quote was “second or third hand.” Then, during cross, he “read” me a quote from _The Potter’s Freedom.” I was sitting right next to him and I asked, “Are there any dots (ellipses) in that quote?” and asked for a page number. I watched him scanning his computer screen like he had never even seen the citation before. He admitted there were ellipses. I said, “Of course there are.” And he never gave me the citation. A kind young lady in the first row happened to have TPF with her, and she handed it to me. So he decided to go on to the next question. My conclusion is others “quote mined” the book and gave him a file with “good quotes to use.” As I pointed out, he never even attempted to refute the exegesis in the book because he lacks the capacity to do so. And he clearly did not read it seeking to understand the position. When he presented what “Limited Atonement” meant in his opening, it wasn’t even close. Jack Chick level silliness. So, I gave him no quarter. I was not going to play “buddy buddy” with someone who showed so little respect for simple honesty as to behave and speak as he did. He is not an orthodox Mormon on any level, and that came out when I tried to get him to at least admit that his god became a god by obedience to gospel ordinances and principles. I wanted to make the point (and did) that a finite god who became a god is insufficient grounding for transcendent principles and morality, hence undercutting the claim of his thesis. Oh, and the first question from the audience to him was whether God had killed every man, woman, and child in Noah’s flood. Not exactly surprising, he rejected the flood story on the basis of “science.” (Joseph Smith accepted the flood story as history). I am looking forward to the video coming out. If you think the cross-ex with Heschmeyer or Austin was “hot,” well…nothing compared to last night. But if you were hoping for a really thought out presentation from the LDS side…nothing. Think of the 1 million “John Calvin was a heretic” videos done by KJVO fundies on YouTube: same stuff. So when you see how I let him get away with nothing in cross-ex, the reason is simple: I knew he was capable of serious interaction, but had chosen the cheap way of dishonesty and misrepresentation, joined with emotional appeals to the audience. I have zero respect for such behavior. None. When I wrote TPF, I showed Geisler the utmost courtesy in researching his position, accurately representing it, etc. Hansen showed me, and the position, and the audience, nothing but smarmy condescension and disrespect. Finally, it is truly enlightening to watch neo-Mormonism, or maybe Oslerism, developing. Why the GAs are not only allowing this, but seemingly, promoting this, is beyond me.
English
177
24
265
97.2K
Ryker
Ryker@RykerJackson97·
@HwsEleutheroi You know, normally we let people just watch the debate. It's odd how much commentary you're giving before anyone has had a chance to watch it.
English
2
0
96
899
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡
Reference to the "where was that in the book?" issue from Friday night. I was able to get the audio transcribed and then look up the reference in The Potter's Freedom. First, the exchange: Hansen: But let's go on to the diff the next question. In your book The Potter's Freedom, you said quote God has the perfect right to do with man as he wishes, just as the potter has utter sovereignty over the clay. Some are sinners upon whom God's wrath comes. They are said to have been specifically prepared for destruction. That is their purpose. Now with these with any of these individuals. White: Is that is that is that a is that a quote without any dots in it There are some buttons. There are some that okay so they're coming from different places. That's fine. Hansen: You you can correct what's wrong here, but this is the question in the right. That's right. Well that's fine. No no I don't think so. This up and put it online for everyone to see. Is there anything that those individuals who were prepared for destruction and that's their purpose is to be destroyed? Is there anything that those individuals could ever do to be saved? White: The those who are specifically chosen to glorify God in their rebellion would never want to do anything. And in fact In fact, God keeps them from doing worse things. He limits their sin. He doesn't have to, but he does for his purposes So they would never want to do anything else. So see, you have the idea that mankind just has this freedom to choose or do this or that other thing. rather than the scriptures teaching that we are dead in sin until we're raised to life. Now do you have a page number that you that I could uh look up that from? Hansen: Um I'm gonna go on to the next question. Original context from The Potter's Freedom, starting on page 213 (Kindle edition anyway): Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:21-24) The Potter's freedom pulses through these words, flowing inexorably into the sea of sovereignty, rushing any would-be proponent of free will out of its path. God has the perfect right to do with His creation (including men) as He wishes, just as the Potter has utter sovereignty over the clay. Just as God had demonstrated His wrath and power by wasting idolatrous Egypt, so too He demonstrates His wrath upon "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Are these nations? Classes? No, these are sinners upon whom God's wrath comes. They are said to have been specifically "prepared for destruction." That is their purpose. Why are there vessels prepared for destruction? Because God is free. Think about it: there are only three logical possibilities here.2 Either 1) all "vessels" are prepared for glory (universalism); 2) all "vessels" are prepared for destruction; or 3) some vessels are prepared for glory and some are prepared for destruction and it is the Potter who decides which are which. Why is there no fourth option, one in which the pots prepare themselves based upon their own choice? Because pots don't have such a capacity! Pots are pots! Since God wishes to make known the "riches of His grace" to His elect people (the vessels prepared of mercy), there must be vessels prepared for destruction. There is no demonstration of mercy and grace where there is no justice. The vessels of wrath, remember, like being vessels of wrath, would never choose to be anything else, and they detest the vessels that receive mercy. Indeed, during the writing of this book I encountered an unbeliever who, upon hearing me mention the wrath of God, mocked and said, "Ah, yes, the wrath of God! I LIKE IT!" This is the attitude of the vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. God's wonderful grace will be praised throughout eternity because of the great contrast between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy. Why? Because the only difference between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy is the sovereign grace of God that changes the heart of the rebel sinner and turns him from being a God-hater into a God-lover. This is why there is no basis for man's boasting, ever. ======== Just a quick observation: The quotation is taken from commentary on Romans 9, specifically, and the following text actually answers the question Hansen then asks based on the citation! It was so sadly obvious that Hansen had no intention of accurately representing the material he was quoting, and he gave no evidence at all that he had read it, let alone understood it.
English
36
8
67
21.9K
Sjchad
Sjchad@stevenjay84·
@JS_StrngstSldr Yes—that, along with all the other verses describing the Atonement.
English
0
0
0
16