/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>792996

>is everything predetermined?

No. Calvinism is heresy.

>>793014

>he still falls for SDA memes

Except it isn't, misinformed turboprot

>>792996

the only thing fated was for (you) to make this gay post.

Read St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa on predestination, election, and reprobation

>>792996

Calvinism is still heresy, but a Calvinist would never suggest that either. Determinism is not Calvinism, nor are either equivalent to the idea that God has foreknowledge of events, which is entirely reconcilable to free will.

>>793011

Have you read the bible?:

>27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Acts 4:27-28

Also, predestination isn't a uniquely a Calvinistic concept.

>>793020

Aquinas believed in unconditional election

>>793031

>>793028

>>793027

How do you determine what is and isn't heresy?

>>793042

Has the traditional church i.e. the Church from 33 to 1054 A.D. which compiled the Bible taught it? If no, then it's heresy

>>793046

What if they condemn something as heresy but is actually sound biblical teaching?

>>793047

What if you think it is sound biblical teaching but it was actually heretical the entire time?

>>793047

This is logically contradictory, the Church compiled the Bible, all 46 OT books and the 27 NT books.

The judgement of the apostles vis a vis what gets included in the Bible, is not a different beast from their teaching on other matters, but rather both the Biblical canon and the Church's philosophic thought flows from the same source, Jesus of Nazareth.

>>793051

Then you go to scripture and give your proof and if you are unable to give biblical backing for it then it is false. As Athanasius says:

>"Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things."

(Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)

>>793047

Jesus of Nazareth is the Rabbi of all believers, so if he didn't preach predestination, there is on reason to believer predestination is not heretical.

>>793055

**no reason to believe predestination is not heretical.

Sorry, double negative got messed up

>>793053

If you believe that your church is the true church then why do we see them condemn things that are plainly taught in scripture? Also, you have to understand that your interpretation of patristic texts is also your own personal opinion since there are countless churches that claim apostolicity and depending on your church you can condemn other churches.

>>793055

He did:

>While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

John 17:12

Also, would you deny the Pauline epistles?

>>792996

Creating humans and predestining them to eternal suffering would be an act of pure evil. Since God is omnibenevolent, it's impossible for God to actually do something like that.

>>793054

>quoting a Cathodox bishop to support sola scriptura

Also, while we're qoting Church Fathers

Saint Cyril of Alexandria says:

>"But if a man endowed as others, and equally with them, with the gifts of Divine grace, has fallen by his own free will, how shall Christ be said not to have saved even him, since he delivered the man and gave him the necessary aid to avoid sin"

Saint John Chrysostom asks:

>"How is it that some are vessels of wrath, others vessels of mercy"? Because of each person's free will; for, since God is very good, He manifests equal kindness to all"

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem:

>"God has opened the gate of eternal life, so that, as far as He is concerned, all may gain it without anything to hinder them".

Saint Jerome says

>"Man can do no good work without God, Who, in giving free will, did not refuse His grace to aid every single work"

Saint Ambrose:

"He would never come and knock at the door, unless He wished to enter; it is our fault that He does not always enter".

>>793060

God wishes all men to be saved, speaking of Pauline epistles

>[2] For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. [3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

How can God wish for everyone to be saved and predestine men to eternal suffering at the same time?

>>793055

Also, I just realised. Christ doesn't explicitly talk about predestination but mainly about the inability of man to do good works and therefore need the strong hand of God to repent and do good works but still, even if there wasn't a explicit verse about it it wouldn't matter since Christ, the rabbi of all believers, doesn't talk about homosexuality but this doesn't mean that they are not sins.

The gospels are short and the epistles expound on the teachings of Christ.

>>793060

Deny the Pauline epistles? No, Paul's letters come from the same source as the Church's teaching, namely Jesus.

>That the scripture might be fulfilled

This is not predestination either, predestination is the heretical belief that those who are destined for heaven are so destined no matter what they do. It is an amoral error.

It is different from suggesting that God knows in advance what people will do, so long as you do not deny free will.

>>793071

>Doesn't condemn homosexuality

Since He was a virgin, and approved of holy virginity, to a normal person the idea that such a person would ever have said sodomy is ok, is absurd. 200% not worth mentioning. He didn't even have to say "remember how I destroyed Sodom?" Implied condemnation

>>793070

I'm not the one who has to believe everything that the ecf said. Even the statement ecf is subjective depending on the church you are a part of. But even Cyril, John Chrysostom and jerome are not above the bible and their statements should be read under the authority of the bible. Furthermore, that quote by John Chrysostom is from his interpretation of romans 9 and anyone who has studied the text of romans 9 would know that John Chrysostoms interpretation is so sub par that it even brings to question whether or not we should listen to everything the ecfs have said. It's why I'm not a cathodox since they lean too much on the early church fathers since they were in err on specific parts.

Also, about that quote from the pauline epistles read fulgentius of ruspe, a 5th century bishop, write about it:

>Nevertheless, these “all men” whom God wishes to save include not the entire human race altogether, but rather the totality of those who are to be saved. So the word “all” is mentioned because the divine kindness saves all kinds from among all men, that is, from every race, status, and age, from every language and every region. In all of these people, this message of our Redeemer is fulfilled where he says, “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself.”

>>793072

First of all I just want you to know that you're mistaken on the calvinistic position. You said:

>predestination is the heretical belief that those who are destined for heaven are so destined no matter what they do.

This is not what we believe. That is a heresy known as antinomianism and some hypercalvinists have taken up similar positions which differs from calvinism.

But let's carry on. To prove that God actively predestines things and not mere foreknwolege as you claim here:

>It is different from suggesting that God knows in advance what people will do, so long as you do not deny free will.

I want you to tell me what you think this verse means:

<27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Acts 4:27-28

>>793074

Virginity doesn't neccesarily mean that you condemn homosexuality. Also, you mentioned the OT which is good and in that case I will show you this:

>26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

From ezekiel.

Also, here is something from Christ himself.

>You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

John 15:16

>>793072

I think you might wanna read John 15:16 too

>>793226

>That Pic

Oh boy. I love how people think that all Calvinists Soteriology is, is looking for verses in the bible that mention predestination. Romans 8:28-30 uses the word predestination but I don't ever use that to prove double predestination since it's stupid to do so. There has to be some precedence to say that the predestining is actvely done by God in order to make it double and that's what I do.

>So you're doing the whole "all doesn't really mean all" bit here. Very disappointing.

I mentioned Fulgentius because I wanted to give early evidence for the existence of of our belief and prove that it isn't a 16th century innovation. A lot, if not all, reformed doctrines haev some precedence in early Christianity and this cathodox claim that everything we believe in is simply made up by martin luther is nothing but cathodox rhetoric. But if you want a better defense I am more than happy to give it.

>That still doesn't prove dual predestination from birth.

You're right, and it wasn't supposed to but now I am about to give evidence for such belief.

>pharaoh didn't harden it himself some first.

Ok, right off the bat we have a typical arminian talking point. "b-but the pharoah hardened his own heart first". This point only goes to show that the person hasn't been beothered to actually read the exodus accont and when you do read it this whole idea of the phaorah hardening his own heart first falls flat on its face. Now, when Moses has spoken with God, God commands him to go to pharaoh and command him to let the people of isreal go. This is before moses has ever ever spoken to pharaoh about this issue and now he is told by God to go and do so. We read in Exodus 7:2-3

CONT

>>793226

<You are to speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron must declare it to Pharaoh so that he will let the Israelites go out of his land. 3But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I will multiply My signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,

Notice something? We see here that even before the pharaoh was even asked about letting the people of isreal go God alraedy told moses beforehand than he will harden the pharaohs heart. Before he hardened his own heart and before the pharaoh was even told to let the people of isreal go! Also, it should be understood that even when the event is reported in the NT we see that it's always shown that God was the one i charge and made it so that the pharaoh was to fall. We read in romans 9:17

<For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, "I have

>>793192

>I have no arguments and I must shitpost

>>793226

Lastly, the verses you posted at the end

>1 Timothy 4:10

The greek word used here for "specially" can literally be translated to "namely". So you can read it as God is the savior of all men, namely those who believe.

>1 John 2:2

Yes, this opposes the idea that salvation is based on ethnicity. The whole world can't be taken to mean the whole world because otherwise everyone will go to heaven. Clearly you consider the whole world here to mean those who will believe. When it says not for our sins only but also the whole world it means not just us jews but those around the world.

>John 1:29

Same point. Also, the argument of all doesn't mean all is deeper than you think.

>>793306

>>793303

>>793302

>>793080

>>793078

>>793060

>>793054

>>793041

>>793304

If you want an argument read these posts above

Bump

>>793078

Specific interventions by God in the course of world events is not the same as saying all events are predetermined by God. I refuse the notion that scripture being fulfilled according to God's decisions means that God has annihilated free will and left us with the mere illusion of free will.

>>793078

Also

<27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Read it again, and I think you'll find that taking this at face value, like you are attempting to do, means that God creates evil, which is heretical. After a certain point, don't you have to admit that if you follow this logic of yours, Judas Iscariot should be in heaven for fulfilling God's word? You sound like a Mohammedan.

>>793561

Ok, this isn't the first time I've heard this argument. It's a natural reply people always give me when I post this verse and usually I just show them this:

>In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Ephesians 1:11

Here we see that the one who gave us the inheritance that we were predestined for works "ALL" things to the council of his will. You try and limit the scope of God's sovereignty by saying that it only refers to a specific event like the crucifixion but you have to understand that there had to be a incalculable amount of things that had to occur beforehand to bring about this specific event. A good way to think about it is thinking of the butterfly effect. If so much as one minute even in the past is changed it could effect large portions of the future. God has to be in control of everything from the begining and a single thing that is changed could have changed the future and made the crucifixion not occur.

>>793562

From your post here it seems like you accept my view but you only contest it because you understand the implications of such a plain reading. Now, the best way to explain this is like this. Humans are all depraved. We have all fallen short of the glory of God:

>for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 3:23

And because of this all our good deeds and efforts have also been tainted as a result of the fall:

>All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Isaiah 64:6

And there is nothing we can do to gain our own salvation.

Now, God can either leave us in our sin, since he is under no obligation to save everyone, or he can save everyone or he can select a few to save. God has decided to elect some and with the one's he has not elected he has decided to use them for a purpose to fulfill his will and gain glory. Either by hardening the hearts of some or using other to kill his Son. Again, God leaves some in their sins while others he decides to save and this is his right as God.

>>793577

>You only contest it because you understand the implications of such a plain reading.

Plain reading is not always correct reading, this goes for the quote here >>793572 as well.

My main bone of contention is this; you seem to believe that Greek philosophy is the key to understanding the scriptures. So when it says predestination, you think of a concrete determinism, and Scholastic learning when Paul has no such intent. Paul is just saying "predestined" as in a God-appointed purpose. He means that our maker intended for mankind to be wedded to Christ, generally speaking. He doesn't mean for Socratic autism to mangle those words into dialectic, when his clear intent is much more casual. It's like if I said it was "predestined" that I met a girl. I don't actually mean that I believe in predestination, I'm being hyperbolic. Just like how I can say I was "predestined" to find God in Christ, which means that I cannot imagine it having gone any other way with me, even though I know full well that I could have chosen another religion or another girl. I lack the imagination to come up with an alternate reality, and this is an expression of my satisfaction with the reality I am in right now. Just like if I say "it could not be any better" casually, I don't mean to subscribe to philosophical optimism.

What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Zero.

>>793577

>>793572

Also the suggestion that you can solve the free-will versus determinism debate in philosophy, on the authority of the Bible alone is an epistemological fail, so there's no point in trying to prove that the Bible endorses it either way.

At best it's just what the Orthodox might call a homologumenon, in other words, cool_story_bro.jpg

>>793592

>Plain reading is not always correct reading, this goes for the quote here

Yes, context is key and you should also try to figure out the point the writer is trying to prove. But I believe that there is no possible alternative when reading the verses that I have posted. If there is I would love to hear it.

>What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Zero

Beautiful quote by tertullian. The funny thing is that even though tertullian said that, little did he know he himself was actually reading pagan philosophy into the scripture. I see that we are moving from a debate about what the bible says to one of philosophy and epistemology and other such things but it's funny since assuming that you are a cathodox you believe in the trinity, a doctrine that relies heavily on gnostic terms such as ousia and hypostasis to explain itself. Just because it uses terms and language foreign to the bible does that mean it is false? I mentioned earlier that I don't just find verses in the bible that say words but also try to see if the purpose of the text is to prove what I want it to. That is, when it uses such terms does it mean it in the sense that I mean it? This is why although romans 8 talks about predestination I don't use it because it does not neccesarily entail my definition of it.

But if we go on I like how you compare our view of predestination to the stoic and greek view of it. To the greeks fate was a immaterial force that favoured no one and had to real purpose. Even the gods were subject to it and couldn't resist fate. On the other hand, as Ephesians 1:11 states, all things are predestined for a purpose and that is to bring all of God's people back to him and for God to be glorified.

>>793598

I think you've misunderstood sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is just that we see the bible as the ultimate authority and we can use philosophy, which I see as a way to understand things at their most basic level. And that is fine but you should never substitute the bible for philosphy but rather philosophy is a tool that we use to understand the bible and theology better.

>>793605

Let's back it up a minute. We're not naturalists, so there are two ways things can be predestined.

>1) The final ends of things (teleological determinism)

>2) What is going on here and now (hard determinism)

I get the decided impression that Paul is talking about predestination in the first sense, meaning our final fate and purpose is to be united to God. I am disinclined to believe that he was speaking in the second sense. Hard determinism was considered fringe back then (and still is to some extent today). The consensus in Cathodox circles is free will, and I as an Anglican (yeah I know) we agree.

>>793302

>I wanted to give early evidence for the existence of of our belief and prove that it isn't a 16th century innovation.

There is nothing new under the sun. There's early evidence for questioning God's word in the garden of Eden, still doesn't make it right even a little bit. This whole point is completely irrelevant it gets you nowhere. If we as individuals reject the concrete meaning of words such as all then pretty soon we're talking past each other with completely different languages that sound the same.

>Ok, right off the bat we have a typical arminian talking point.

Arminians reject eternal security though. So what does that have to do with any of the scripture I brought up? Calvinist and arminians are both wrong and a total false dichotomy.

>We see here that even before the pharaoh was even asked about letting the people of isreal go God alraedy told moses beforehand than he will harden the pharaohs heart.

Now you're confusing foreknowledge with actively preventing belief which is what hardening is. Also, I'm pretty sure the Pharaoh wasn't an unborn child when God said this. There's good reason to believe by this point he was quite possibly reprobate or a good way towards it. And we know that he hardened his own heart first early on, we can account that to the Pharaoh himself.

You would like to lay all the blame for sin at the feet of God, but Jeremiah 19:5 clearly demonstrates that he is not the author of sin, as I have said before.

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: - Jeremiah 19:5

>we see that it's always shown that God was the one i charge

This still doesn't remove accountability to Pharaoh for his sins. This was pharaoh being recompensed for his own actions and God used it to magnify his own glory in the process. This doesn't remove accountability.

Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.

For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways. - Job 34:10-11

>The whole world can't be taken to mean the whole world because otherwise everyone will go to heaven.

No it doesn't. Only by your tragically ill-conceived logic. Also 2 Peter 2:1 specifically states that reprobates are denying the Lord that bought them.

>>793572

>God has to be in control of everything from the begining and a single thing that is changed could have changed the future and made the crucifixion not occur.

Now you're the one limiting God. You just said he can't find a way to get to his stated end without authoring people to sin. So you just blamed God for every sin and disobedience and aquitted every person of it, while also limiting the capability of God by saying some things are beyond him. The actual truth of scripture far exceeds that view:

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. - Genesis 50:20

>Again, God leaves some in their sins while others he decides to save and this is his right as God.

This doesn't mean God is the author of sin though. What part of that do you not get?