James R. White - ProsApologian

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

http://aomin.org/proschat.html

Elpidio, and others, but especially Elpidio, since you like using Greek arguments alot, why not try chatting with James White, a leading protestant apologist who knows Greek, and can help you sort out your "Jesus is not God" heresy.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004

Answers

If you guys don't have the chat app mIRC, you can use the Java version. http://www.peteweb.com/proschat/

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.

For the lazy people who don't want to copy and paste the link: Click on them: The Pros Apologian Christian Chat Channel - mIRC

or

The Pros Apologian Christian Chat Channel - @peteweb-Java

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


That stuff is all "greek" to me.

And, for those extremely intelligent types, you all can guess on a URL to link to.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


So, David, what about David White's heresy? This guy sounds scary. What if he is wrong about all that he preaches/propagandizes? He sounds like another anti-Catholic.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


Whose David White?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Rod,

Are you going to start calling people names again? What about the Anti-Evangelicals at the Catholic forum?, or the Anti-Protestants at Catholic Answers?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Oops! Sorry, David. I guess that was an honest Freudian slip on my part. No, I'm not gonna do any name calling, unless of course the shoe fits. This James White person is making some strong accusations, which are anti-Catholic. Can you defend his anti-Catholic stance--I can't?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


The question is, Rod, can you refute his stance? No other apologist, from Mormons to JW's to Catholics to Arminian's can.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.

Sorry, David, but I believe I asked you first. (Queen's pawn to Queen's 2, it is your move.)

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


Observation No. XXXXXXXX

Us guys and gals are losing our freedom of speech and religion gradually and discreetly.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.



Hey, Rod, this James White is a Calvinist. It seems David wants a heavyweight to do the fighting for him now.

Check this out from the above link by David Ortiz:

We believe that man was created in the image of God. Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin. As a result, man became spiritually dead, totally unwilling and indeed incapable of seeking after God. God, from eternity past, having foreordained all things, joined a certain people to Christ Jesus, so that He might redeem them from their sin and in so doing bring glory to Himself. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died in the place of this elect people, providing full and complete forgiveness of sins by His death upon the cross of Calvary. No other work can provide for forgiveness of sins, and no addition can be made to the completed and finished work of Christ.

Everytime I hear someone say or use the words that Jesus died for the elect, I cringe.

I just pity those poor kids Jesus said to these belong the kingdom of God.

The elect will be saved 90% of the time, Rod, that ois why they are the elect. They represent less than 1% of the human race.

Jesus told the parable about the 99 sheep and the "one " sheep. I like the way is in the Gospel of Thomas: The shepherd(Jesus) chose it because it it was the fattest one.

It makes sense: Jesus said he had come to call sinners to repentance, that is, the non-elect!!!

Don't worry David. As soon as i learn how to get into that place, I want to see how Mr. White deals with a true Man of Yahweh, not wannabees the sort of Smith, the founder of the Mormons. Not Russel and Rutherford, the founders of Bible Students later Jehovah's Witnesses.

I am a scholar, and as such I question the scriptures we have received, but at the same time I am someone who not only believes God Yahweh and his Son Jesus Christ, but someone who has talked to them.

God and Jesus want everyone to be saved, not just the elect, David.

The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


You see? When the White shoe fits, it fits.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


must say guys, this once again appeals to the lowest of common denominators.

first, lie about what Catholics believe: then, attack them for it.

how many times have you seen that before?!?!?!

i suppose that he has gotten quite wealthy on it though. i always laugh when i hear how rich the Church is. how much do you think the Pope spends each day on himself? much less than one of these get- rich-quick protestant/calvin evangelists, i'd warrant!!

and yes, the Calvin stuff is really quite depressing. its just manmade with a captial "M".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2004.


We believe that man was created in the image of God. Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin. As a result, man became spiritually dead, totally unwilling and indeed incapable of seeking after God. God, from eternity past, having foreordained all things, joined a certain people to Christ Jesus, so that He might redeem them from their sin and in so doing bring glory to Himself. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died in the place of this elect people, providing full and complete forgiveness of sins by His death upon the cross of Calvary. No other work can provide for forgiveness of sins, and no addition can be made to the completed and finished work of Christ.

Doesn't this bother you any David?

How sincere is God then?

When I think of God pleading with the Israelites to repent and turn to Him--over and over again in the Old Testament--and the whole time-- He had programmed them not to be able to!

The Bible tells us that "whosoever" believes in Jesus Christ--will see everlasting life. It never stipulates though, that God has made it impossible for some to do this. So is God disingenuous?

Ya know David...the Bible uses the term *elect* in a variety of ways. The term is used for Israel, Christ, a lady, a church and angels. Never, however, is the word used to indicate that there is a select group who alone have been predestined to be saved.

Nowhere in the Bible are people ever predestined to go to hell, and nowhere are people simply predestined to go to heaven.

Predestination is always for the saved--those who have trusted in Christ--and it is always to some special blessing.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2004.


Yikes!

Calvinism.

who else follows "predestination" (as i believe it to be called).

presbyterians?

who else?

just interested.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2004.



"first, lie about what Catholics believe: then, attack them for it. "

Ian, you should be able to prove how Mr. White has done this.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


"i suppose that he has gotten quite wealthy on it though"

Accually, I hear he lives quite humbly.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


Dave,

i will.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2004.


White argues that the [Roman] Church of the 4th century is neither identical to, nor even closely related to, the modern [Roman] Church. Not true. The [Roman] Church continues to hold all of the dogma, liturgy, and hierarchy of the early [Roman] Church. IN PARTICULAR, the Real Presence is as much the centre-point of today’s Mass as it was in the 1st Century (quote: St Justin Martyr, Apologies).

White argues that [Roman] Saints such as Basil, Athanasius, and Augustine were sola scripturists – WRONG. Not true. See here: http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/fathers.htm

White argues, defending Sola Scriptura, that [Roman] Church must teach that the Holy Spirit did a bad job at inspiring the Bible, and that the Bible is contradictory/ inconsistent. Not true. The [Roman] Church teaches the opposite.

White consistently misrepresents the development of [Roman] Catholic Dogma and uses this error to argue that any early [Roman] Church Father who may not have subscribed to a later dogma of the [Roman] Church (eg later ones: the Immaculate Conception) was not really a [Roman] Catholic. Untrue. [Roman] Catholics believe that fresh aspects of the faith can be observed, studied and codified as dogma by the [Roman] Church, acting under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as promised in Scripture.

Have you seen his bank balance recently David? what car does he drive? how many holidays a year does he take, and where? how much did he pay for his house? does he belong to the country club? maybe you could get him to answer these questions over a game of chess?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2004.


btw, David, i would take issue with any apologist of any faith that got wealthy on the back of it. i have no evidence to suggest that White is doing this. i have no evidence to suggest that any particular apologist is doing this. but it seems wrong if it does happen.

my general suspicion arises from those TV shows where thay ask you to sen din money and you will get some little trinket or other that has been touched (!!!! toucched!!!) by some self-appointed pastor.

after MAss, all religious items are sold on behalf of good causes - net of production overheads, the proceeds will go to fair trade or some other worthy cause. that seems fair.

in fact, i have a real issue with lay apologists generally, especially Catholic ones. to my mind, theology is for the priests and bishops, not laymen.

anyways, just USD0.02.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2004.


Ian,

Where did you copy that? You should be able to cite the sources, or atleast give us the webpage that said that. Mr. White does his best to NOT misrepresent people.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


Ian,

You can ask him those questions yourself, go to the chat :-). He spends alot of time there.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


http://www.peteweb.com/proschat/

Theres the link Ian, get in, ask, and try not to get banned.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


If anything Ian, I believe you might be misrepresenting him.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.

What kind of chatting can be fair when the MAN has the power to shut one down by banning him? That means always having to watch what you say so as not to be misinterpreted, but the MAN can say whatever he pleases. Nobody will ban the MAN. That's as lop-sided as playing tennis with one leg tied to the other and hoping the ball won't fly by to far off your space. That's what I can't stand about the MAN and his forum; it's always a raw deal for the little guy. But, that surely doesn't happen around here in this liitle ol' forum. :)

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


rod,

Mr. White does not tolerate anyone who starts name calling, and goes to the level of Chavez and Gecik. Mr. White loves debates, and welcomes Roman Catholics. But anyone who starts using a foul mouth will get banned

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


@@
()

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


Well, based on what I read, someone like "The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh" would be banned, according to the rules of the White.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


BTW, a foul mouth may be the lesser of two evils when blasphemy pierces its target with soothing and gentle eloquence.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


If Elpidio does join, http://www.peteweb.com/proschat/, and get in, he'd have to type this:

/join #Apologetics

to get in the Apologetics channel where they'll welcome him more.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


Well, David.

I sent Pete an e-mail. I told him I don't believe in the Trinity.

let's see what he says.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


dont send him emails, he just hosts the java thingy

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.

David

these errors are in his anti-Catholic book.

they're well known - publicly verifiable.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.


Ian,

then you should be able to cite the source.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.


the source is his anti-Catholic book that carries lies such as these.

'nuff said?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.


Elpidio

you MUST let us know how you get on.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.


ps David

where did the [Roman] bits come from?

they were not in my original post.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.


Ian,

I want you to cite your sources. Book page paragraph, everything. It should be no problem, unless you going by what someone else told you. I inserted the Roman 'bits' for reasons that should be obvious by now.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.


Well, David, Pete actually responded.

I used your name in my introduction.

He was surprised to find other people caring about his place.

He said it was OK as long as I was civil.

He actually believes that God has called all people to repentance.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.


Yes, I *did* respond. But let's expand on your question an bit shall we? You asked, "Pete, do you accept people like me, a Christian Yahwist?" Well, having no idea what you meant by "accept," I read on. You told me your name, and three specific beliefs, and then gave me (what I thought was) a bit of context, "I was looking at some threads like Thomas Gospel." You then provided a link to my message board, therefor I made the leap and thought, "Okay, he doesn't mean 'accept him as a human being' he must mean 'accept his voice on my message boards.'" And I am fine with that.

But as I pop in here, I see you've been talking about the #ProsApologian chat channel. Fortunately, I only provide the java- interface for that... it's not my channel, so I don't make the rules. ProsApologian exists for Christian discussion/fellowship, not apologetics. David rightly pointed out there's a different channel for that. (#Apologetics)

And, absolutely, the call to repentance goes out to all people. All fall under the righteous condemnation of God for thier sin, and are accountable for that. "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." (Romans 3:19) However, if you're saying that I believe all have the *capacity* in and of themselves to do what is pleasing to God, i.e. repent and come to Christ, then no, because, "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)

And since I'm here, yes, I'm one of those nasty ol' Calvinists =). And I can definitely testify that Dr. White is not "getting rich" from his ministry. He's a very vocal member of a very small minority, and doesn't sell much - barely enough to keep the ministry alive. It has a whopping 2 employees, Dr. White being one of them. I hope to change all that when I come out with my new book, "The Complete Idiots Guide to The Purpose-Driven Prayer Of Jabez For Those Left Behind Because They Were Calvinists." I've done some research, and there's evidence that the title alone will make it a best- seller. That should help put us poor Calvinists back in the limelight. We'll party like it's 1517!

God Bless!

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


Yikes! Pete. Do you mean to say that God allows for some humans to remain depraved and un-Saved? So, why would anyone bother having faith if it isn't in the cards for them to be "elected"/saved?

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


Certainly - but unless you're a universalist, you believe God allows people to remain "depraved and un-saved." I don't know where this dichotomy between faith and salvation is coming from. Calvinists believe all those who have true faith in Christ are saved (and therefor, elect) - the *real* question is, why does this person have faith, and this other one does not? Is it because of his own ability to "muster up" the faith? Or is it because he received that faith from God (2 Peter 1:1, Romans 12:3, Ephesians 2:8,9)?

Most of the opposition to the Calvinistic perspective comes from the fact that we're taught things a certain way, until it becomes a tradition so firmly established, any other concept becomes offensive. That's how it was for me, certainly - I railed against Calvinism mightily. However, eventually, I was boo-yah'ed by the Bible and eventually had to admit that, in the matter of God's mercy, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:7).

And, frankly, anyone who believes the the omniscience of God has to deal with it. If God knows all things, past present and future, and knew full well that John Doe would die in his sins and suffer the eternal wrath of God... and yet God created him in spite of that fact... one is forced to deal with the fact that, even in His wrath, God has a purpose which is to his Glory.

God Bless!

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


I have many questions for you, Pete.

Here's one:

If God has given faith to a man, that faith should last for ever. But, if that faith dwindles to nothing, who gave this man faith?

It's that old saying, "If you lost your faith, you never had it" kind of thing. So, it seems that you are saying that God gives faith to a particular group. If that is true, God is giving some faulty faith with warranty expiration dates. I don't subcribe to such a thing. You've probably guessed by now that I'm not a Calvinist.

I will re-read your post. My time limits are short.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


Pete: "Certainly - but unless you're a universalist, you believe God allows people to remain "depraved and un-saved."

rod: Well, where does this put Hell and those damned souls? Who, then, puts them there, God? or Man?

If faith is given to man by God, and some do not have that faith, is it man's own doings or God's doings that he falls.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


It's hard to know precisely where to start, since your objections aren't really to positions I hold. Please note that I specified "true faith" in my post. True, saving faith lasts because it is a gift from God and he who begins that good work in our lives will perfect it (Philippians 1:6). This "expiring" faith you speak of is not the same faith recieved by Peter (2 Peter 1:1), not a gift from God, and therefor you are comparing apples to oranges. Obviously there are all sorts of people within the Christian fellowship who are there for the wrong reasons. They claim faith, but so did those Paul mentions in Galatians 2:4. Therefor, the situation you're describing is not my position, so I can't really respond to it.

Secondly, your second question ignores some key issues I brought up in my previous post. Firstly, of course God is the one who puts people in hell - hell is the outpouring of His righteous and just wrath against sin. Hell didn't just pop into existance on it's own, so your first statement is outside my understanding.

Your second statement clarifies a bit, but is basically the very same objection Paul addresses in Romans 9. "Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will??" Read Paul's answer to the objection in Romans 9:19-24, and then let me know what you think.

Also, for a perfect example of how God's will works out to His glory, and yet men are accountable for the desires of their hearts, read how God used Assyria to punish Israel, and then turned around and punished Assyria for doing it (based on their intentions) in Isaiah 10:5-19.

God Bless!

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


Is this clear or not?

If faith is given to man by God, and some do not have that faith, is it man's own doings or God's doings that he falls. Does Calvinism teach that God gives man faith?

Does Calvinism teach that only God can bring man to faith?

Again, if the above has anything to do with Calvinism, then why are there souls who are damned?

Are you saying that God offers the gift of faith or puts faith in an "elect" group?

That's really my main concern in figuring out Calvinism.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


those italics, I tell you! ............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.

offcome on...

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


Calvinism teaches that only God can bring an individual to true, saving faith in Jesus Christ, as per John 6:35-44 & 65, and the passages mentioned previously.

I see what you're trying to get at, but I won't go there with you. =) One doesn't suffer the eternal justice of God because of a "lack of faith." One suffers God's wrath because of their sin. However, God in the unsearchable council of his will has had mercy on some, and yet bore with great patience those on whom His mercy did not act. Why? I don't know, but I know he's God, and I know I trust him to make the right decisions. This idea of "God's Fault vs Man's Fault" is precisely why I pointed you to Romans 9 and Isaiah 10.

Now regarding God's choosing and calling, follow Paul's reasoning in Romans 8:29-30...

The ones God foreknew (note... forknew here refers to individuals, not actions), these are the ones he PREDESTINED. The ones he predestined, these are the ones he CALLED. The ones he called, these are the ones he JUSTIFIED. The ones he justified, these are the ones he GLORIFIED.

Only the justified get glorified. Only the called, get justified. And here's the one that's hard for a lot of folks to swallow: only the predestined get called. Note, that is God's calling, not to be confused with the general proclamation of the Gospel or the universal call to repentance. Lastly, the only ones who are predestined are the ones God *knew* before the foundations of the world. (Eph 1:4)

I can't help but note again, rod, that I've mentioned many passages now, which you haven't mentioned at all. I've also pointed you to some good books that would easily clarify any misunderstanding you have about the Calvinistic position. I would council you again to check out those scriptures and at least one of those books so you'll have a better idea of where we're coming from. There simply isn't much room on here for me to give a thorough introduction to what Calvinists believe and why we believe it.

God Bless!

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


Pete-

You seem to evade my questions by not giving me a straight "yes" or "no" answer. You send me to the Scriptures. Yes, I believe in the Scriptures, but I do not take a man-made doctrine--Calvinism--and make the attempt to "fit" it into Scriptures, which you are asking me to do. We are looking at Calvin's take on Scriptures; I supppose. But, by "not going there" seems to imply an absents or refusal to touch on the "nitty-gritty" of Calvinism. Ok, we won't go there, then. I can see why David would say that no one can refute the White's teachings--we just won't go there.

:)

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


uh...."absence", sorry.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


LOL! I'm sorry, but it seems you're saying that because I'm trying to give you a complete answer, that attempts to accurately represent what I believe, that I am then "evading" your questions.

Such an assertion simply doesn't hold any water. If I were to ask you, "So, you belive Jesus is a failure as a saviour most of the time?" you would of course disagree, and attempt to accurately represent your position. If you're going to discuss what it is I believe, then why not discuss what I *actually* believe, and not what you want to *say* I believe. =)

You accuse my position of being "man made" and yet I have refered over and over again to scriptures, yet you have not pointed out a single one in your responces. You seem to accuse me of taking a man- made tradition and forcing it onto the Word of God. That's a pretty serious accusation, and I'm sorry, but you have offered zero substantiation for that.

I hope you'll rethink what your saying a bit before you make such accusations, and grant me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not in the business of trying to decieve people. God bless.

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


Perhaps it isn't you, Pete, who is in the business of deceiving souls, but maybe it was Calvin who has done the deceiving? Obviously, you do not believe such a thing or you wouldn't call yourself a Calvinist. I, on the other hand, am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking questions that are obviously too sensitive to answer. Are they?

Once again. Does God condemn souls by not "giving" them the faith needed for their Salvation in Jesus Christ? Because, Calvinism takes that free will--God' gift--and makes it moot, yes or no?

Are these simple questions with simple answers?

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


You see; I'm puzzled as to how Calvinism interprets John 3:16.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


I'm sorry, but this discussion is seemingly completely fruitless. Everything I've pointed out, scripture, books, etc, you have completely ignored and instead engaged in ad hominem. It seems that, while I am obligated to respect your questions, you are not obligated to respect my responces, and give them the consideration they are due.

I've already answered, CLEARLY, that people are condemned for their sins, not on the basis of accepting/not accepting Christ. I've walked you through the chain of redemption in Romans 8. You ignore all of that, claim facts not in evidence, and then demand a yes or no responce.

Where, I ask you, is the scripture that says "free will is a gift from God?" I have pointed you to several verses that describe faith as a gift from God, or origionating from God. I challenge you, however, to provide me a single verse that states the "free will" is a gift from God. Just one will do.

So, in answer to your question: I disagree that man's will is libertarian in it's freedom, and again challenge you to demonstrate that it is. The "will" is enslaved to desires - God, for his own reasons, liberates those he chose from the foundations of the world from that slavery to sin. So, no - God does not make the "will" moot, and I AGAIN point you to Romans 9 and Isaiah 10.

If there is any kind of evasion going on here, I believe it will be clear to the careful reader that it is not mine. I'm taking the time to thoughfully respond to your posts. Please, have some courtesy, and take the time to carefully read them.

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


I love John 3:16. One of my favorite verses. What I don't do, however, is try to say that "whoever/whosoever believes" nessesarily means that "anyone who exercises their free will and musters up belief." I take it for what it means... all the ones who believe.

We just differ on why one person believes, and another does not.

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


"I've already answered, CLEARLY, that people are condemned for their sins, not on the basis of accepting/not accepting Christ"

Well, this is the major difference, then. I do believe that our Salvation hinges on faith. We are all sinners, but our faith in Jesus Christ is our redemption. Christ was sacrificed for our sins and paid the price for our Salvation. It is in the faith in Him.

I think our discussion proved to bear some fruit. At least, we cleared that one doctrinal difference.

Pete please don't get too irritated with me. I'm really not such a bad guy. But, I do eventually get some answers and even the truth sometimes.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


"...ad hominem..." Yes, I've been at the receiving end of those; some still consider me a Catholic and us Catholics do get hit ever so often.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


I'm sorry, rod, but I've got to draw this discussion to a close, because you are simply not even attempting to grant my responces the resepect you demand I give your questions. You actually quote me, in saying giving the reason why people are condemned, and then try to counter by saying that "Salvation hinges on faith." Of course it does! I never said otherwise, and wouldn't dare. You never even asked me why people are saved, but you consistantly asked me why people are condemned.

The murder is executed for his homicide, not because he "wasn't pardoned." If you cannot see the difference between the why God exercises His justice, and why he exercises His mercy, and yet are unwilling to address a *single* passage I've mentioned, then I'm afraid that this is no longer a "discussion." Every single one of my questions and requests for explanation remain unanswered, therefor I see no reason to continue this. I still hope you'll take a look at the books I mentioned, so you can at least accurately represent what the Calvinist believes.

Makes me wonder why I spend so much time correcting what other people accuse Catholics of believing. "Oh, they worship Mary!" "The believe you can buy your way out of hell!" I spend a great deal of time correcting such misrepresentations because I recognize that it is simply unfair, and unfruitful, and it's utterly worthless to say, "You believe in such-and-such," when that's not what they believe. I hope you will consider granting the Calvinist position the same respect, no matter how much you disagree with it.

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


Pete

before you run off, can you reconcile your beliefs with the early Church Fathers' writings?

i'm curious because i see a consistency between yr exclusivity and the early Ebionite heresy.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 18, 2004.


ok.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


sorry Pete:

to expand, a Calvinist could be portrayed as an Ebionite who has bought into the Catholic Trinity that stand and falls on Catholic Tradition alone.

PS i think that you are failing to follow rod, not the other way round. rod is clever but disarmingly at ease: which makes him hard to follow at times.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 18, 2004.


Ok, let me borrow one of Faith's sayings, "I guess I'm thick" or something. But, what just happened???

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


Sorry Ian, I have absolutely zero desire to engage in one-sided discussion. A dialogue goes both ways, and all my questions, references, and challenges remain unanswered. Therefor, I could litterally respond to this scattershot approach forever, and make absolutely no progress. I don't know about you guys, but I'm actually a fairly busy fellow most of the time =)

I'm all for dialogue, but this is just getting silly.

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 18, 2004.


Ok, Pete. I will gladly bow out of any further discussion in the hopes that you will remain in this forum, so that others will have the priviledge of engaing with you. I don't want to be responsible for you not participating in this forum. Please, enjoy your stay with us, as I'm sure I will enjoy your discussions.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 18, 2004.


I can see that your 'bowing out' won't really fix anything. It wasn't my intention to shut you down, but rather respond to your questions as fully as possible (given the obvious restraints of this format). What disappointed me was the lack of interaction with those responces. It is clear that most on this board have well defined opinions, and that's fine, but if we're going to engage one another, let's engage the issues as they stand, not the straw men.

Ian - if you can't see a difference between the Calvinistic position and the Ebionism, then I'm afraid there's very little we could actually ever discuss. I think I could make a much stronger case comparing the works-oriented Ebionistic view with Roman Catholic Sacramentalism. Certainly a better comparison than with the Calvinist, who is declaring that there is NOTHING you can do to be justified.

Ah yes, the Trinity. You must be right - I'd have no idea what that was outside of Catholic Dogma. Rest assured the sacred Scriptures contain no clear teaching of monotheism, the deity of Christ, or the person of the Holy Spirit. Oops, sorry... my sarcasm key was on. And it looks like your rhetoric key is on.

That's why I'm bowing out, rod. "Dialogue" is useful, but what goes on here (and I think that has been well demonstrated in this thread alone) is silly.

-- Pete Freckelton (pete@peteweb.com), March 20, 2004.


Oh, come on Pete. That is a cop-out and you know it. I'm sure that you have come across people who can't give you 5 seconds of pure 100% attention before they begin to lose your train of thought. Those are the ones that are hard to reach.

I tell you what, Pete. Give us your "dialogue" cuz what I'm seeing right now is your sensitive reaction to my style of getting answers. Do you think that you can cope with this "silly" style forum? You got to fight your way in if you want to make your point clear. Hey, things are ideal. Christ is our example. He had to pay the price, the least we can do is put up with those hard cases--I guess I'm one of those "thick" ones. You give up too quickly, but I'll bow out for your sake and the others, not for my sake.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 20, 2004.


We have Calvinist, Oneness, Catholic, Christian Yahwist, church of Christ, New Age, New Order, quasi-Traditionist, and Lurkist in this forum. And, we've managed to keep talking and debating. Some of these believers are rejects from the other forum cuz these people aren't the type to sit still and conform to what they consider false teachings. So, a man better know his stuff and say it well around these parts.

Try going into the Catholic Forum and discussing your doctrine there? I don't think you will last too long before they tell you to stop converting them, cuz that's how they'll see it. Here, we talk and dissect it and chew on it, but we don't convert you. Each of us have a strong faith and conviction to our faith.

I'm positive that you, Pete, have the same kind of faith.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 20, 2004.


Even if Kevin and I don't see eye to eye on some things, he has opened my eyes on doctrine. The big deal in my life that was lacking was the obedience to God discipline. I took a good look at my life and tried to see it as Kevin would. I'm taking action.

People like Gail and Ian (and other Catholics) have showed me the light that I couldn't see. I left the Church, but I can see what I missed.

Elpidio has taught me to dig deeper into the answers I seek. I've found new perpectives that I didn't know existed. It gives me more understanding for Scriptures.

Jim reminds me of me at times. We share some of the same wonder. He has this even-ness about him that allows me to keep things in their place. He is an anchor.

Faith is a provoker, but a good one. She makes us think and look inward. I just irritate her.

David is my best friend in the whole wide....screen. I would back him up in a fight any day. And, he has learned to back us up.....I think.

Me? I'm the guy who wants things fair and square. I'm also a member of the 1st Calvary Reinforcement Division. Maybe David will explain that title one day. I'm also the guy that just can't take things at face value. John Gecik called me,"Doubting Thomas II". I think that name fits, but I doubt it.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 20, 2004.


Dear Pete

i appreciate the humour and good nature in yr post. you made me chuckle!

there was a touch of mischeif in my post to you, good natured and not addressed at yourself.

i hope that you can make a contribution here every so often. i would ike to engage you on a number of topics but not just right now.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 22, 2004.


Well, Pete.

I am probably the reason you posted here.

None of us wants to feel we have disrected you in any way.

In this forum evrything goes: scripture, which you used, Church Fathers (which Catholics tend to use), Luther's writings, Calvin, and noncanonical writings like the Gospel of Thomas (me).

Maybe we can engage in a topic of your choice.

The Christian yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 22, 2004.


nice touch Elp.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 22, 2004.

oh

and nicer touch Rod.

i forget my manners so often and so easily.

a fantastic contributor to the Catholic greenspun once said that visitors should always feel "well treated".

i hope that in this site, where i am a visitor who now feels "well treated" by Senor Ortiz, Pete also feels well treated.

of course, in the rage of debate, these things appear to get lost. i just hope that anyone i debate with recognises that my (recognised by rod, btw) fairly full-on approach is never intended to be ad hom.

i don't mind ad hom coming my way. i desparately try to avoid ad hom.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 22, 2004.


http://aomin.org/dllive.ram

The Dividing Line will be on in 10 mintues, 9time right now 5:50pm). It usually lasts for about an hour.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.


http://aomin.org/dividingline.html

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

I never got a clear Calvinistic answer:

God brings souls to faith in Him, yet some souls do not have the God given faith because God decided not to give that soul faith. Therefore, God is condemning souls. Is this the error I see in Calvinism or not? God denies "free will".

I cannot accept Calvinism's doctrine if God is made to look like a puppetere pulling strings on His favored puppets. There are no strings attached, but only lifelines that people are free to grab or release. Those lines are free for all to accept.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 08, 2004.


Also, Calvin's idea that the Sacraments are brownie points for Salvation is ridiculous. That's like saying that baptism is just a merit badge earned. I believe we are talking about "ordinances", "commandments", or "sacraments", not self-indulgences or vain works. People do these things because they are true believers. It could be said that those that don't may not understand faith at all. Brownie points and merit badges are earned for rank and understanding as a self paced merit system. Faith does not work the same way. I believe Jesus does the work for us, we accept it, and obey Him.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 08, 2004.


Rod,

Say somebody is at the bottom of a well, stuck and can't get out. You are telling me that God throws "lifelines that people are free to grab". But, that's the thing, dead people can't grab or "reject" anything. They are dead. Can you support this dead people can still grab on to this 'life line'? (Note: For the smart ones, I'm talking about spiritually dead people) Or are you going to be like Kevin and reject the meaning of the word "dead"?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 08, 2004.


Spiritually dead.

I've been there. Job didn't give up, though he could of. Some will continue to reject God even when all they need to do is call for God's help. They still don't. But, some do surrender to God's will. Both types have a free will to grab for God's help. Look at all of the athiests out there; look at all of the believers out there.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 08, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ