Debating the Reformation+A Scriptual defense of Predestination

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You still have yet to provide a defense for your interpretation of Romans 9 where you claim that it is only

"by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject."

Tell me, is this what the Roman Church teaches? Where does it find it's Scriptual support for such an interpretation. How is my interpretation wrong then?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't acutally given a clear response that differs from the interpretation I gave above, which is why I asked you what you believe. So answer the following question:

Does your interpretation of the term "predestination" in the NT mean that some people are predestined to eternal punishment, without ever having had the opportunity to accept the call of the gospel?

If you answer yes then you are in fact a Calvinist. If your answer is no, then you are not, and your beliefs on this issue can't differ much from mine, those of the Catholic Church.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

I was going through your post and excerpting parts to respond to when I came to this:

Quote:
You have yet to establish that God wants us to hear his message pure and unchanged.



I am probably through debating with you unless you acknowledge this to be a silly statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about Jesus talking in parables?

Quoting Mark 4)

The Purpose of the Parables
10And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12so that

"they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven."

Does this sound like God wants "us" to hear his message pure and unchanged? It seems like you have to justify your statement.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to establish what "the marks of a true church" are. You have yet to establish that the Roman Church has these. You have yet to establish that having the marks of a true church implies that it is a true church.

[/ QUOTE ]

The marks of the true church:

ONE
HOLY
CATHOLIC
APOSTOLIC

The link to the rather long section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains this can be found here .

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

(I'd like to avoid these tall multi-point posts so I am going to address different points in separate posts and suggest you do the same as well.)


[/ QUOTE ]

This is fine, as long as you address the points I make.

[ QUOTE ]

Your two statements above can only not be contradictory of each other if you maintain that there are in fact more sources of divine revelation other than the bible, and that those other sources of revelation are not infallible rules of faith as well. So clarify your position:

1) Are there other sources of divine revelation other than the bible?

2) Do those other sources of revelation contain infallibly true doctrine?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would affirm that it is within God's power to grant divine revelation through dreams and foretellings, I cannot say that I have done enough research into Scripture to say that these have ceased completely. Thus I affirm 1

I will also affirm a qualified 2, these revelations can contain true and infallible teachings on the condition that those teachings are taught in Scripture. Thus I deny that there is continual revelation that cannot be confirmed or is contradictory to Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

Also note that I am only talking about general revelation, which ceased with the death of the last apostle (though may have been written down later by an apostle's disciples as redactors of his works, or passed on orally from them), and not with special revelation in which God directly or by agency might have imparted some divine knowledge to individuals at later dates but which is not necessary for Christians to believe if they choose not to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I am in agreement here, with the exception that I believe all of general revelation that is necessary has been written down in what we call the Bible.

Though, last I checked, doesn't the Roman Church claim to have continued revelation from God in it's teachings on Mary being the Mediatrix?

[ QUOTE ]



Also note regarding your comments on tradition, that HOLY TRADITION referred to by the Catholic Church as part of revelation along with the bible, though that which was originally passed along orally, is NOT the same as human/institutional traditions which is what Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees regarding, since they were imposing burdens of belief and practice not required by the Law.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can acknowledge that you believe it to be different, I do request that you establish the validity of such a tradition, since it seems like there is a lot in Catholicism that is required but isn't explicit from Scripture, which seems to put the Roman teachings on some unsteady footing. The Seven Sacraments come to mind.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]



This should be evident, as God would not entrust the gift of divine revelation without the authority to interpret it. If you disagree, then logically it follows that non-Christians are just as qualified to intrepret Christian scripture as Christians.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like Jesus expected the Pharisees (non-Christians are they not?) to properly interpret Scripture. Does he not say repeatedly "Have you not read?" in Matthew?

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]



You haven't acutally given a clear response that differs from the interpretation I gave above, which is why I asked you what you believe. So answer the following question:

Does your interpretation of the term "predestination" in the NT mean that some people are predestined to eternal punishment, without ever having had the opportunity to accept the call of the gospel?

If you answer yes then you are in fact a Calvinist. If your answer is no, then you are not, and your beliefs on this issue can't differ much from mine, those of the Catholic Church.


[/ QUOTE ]

My answer is yes, not because I want to adhere to some Calvin fellow, but because I believe Scripture teaches this. People are predestined for glory, or for destruction.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this sound like God wants "us" to hear his message pure and unchanged? It seems like you have to justify your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
This Calvin fellow sounds pretty much like a moron to me.

[/ QUOTE ]


Harsh but true. Having to explain semantical meaning and logical thinking takes too much effort. I'm through with him and will only respond to other posters in this thread who might wish to debate.

[Subfallen]

One simple question. Would God first reveal the true interpretation of Scripture to an an egomaniac and sadistic murderer? If you cannot answer "no" to this then YSSCKY.

Edited to add: I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the author of the referenced web site, it was merely the first Google hit containing a reference to the relevant historical data. (Calvin's execution of Servetus.)

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


One simple question. Would God first reveal the true interpretation of Scripture to an an egomaniac and sadistic murderer? If you cannot answer "no" to this then YSSCKY.

Edited to add: I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the author of the referenced web site, it was merely the first Google hit containing a reference to the relevant historical data. (Calvin's execution of Servetus.)


[/ QUOTE ]

letsee, a number of issues with your point

1) Did I claim to God first revealing true interpretation to John Calvin? No

2) Even if I did claim that God first revealed true interpretation to John Calvin, it does not logically lead me to "seriously consider killing myself" (had to google that). Paul was an egomaniac and sadistic mass murderer by some standards, yet he wrote most of the NT.

3) Who John Calvin is and what he has done is irrelevant to how consistant his statements are to Scripture. If they are properly derived from Scripture, then i agree with it. If they are not (and there is some that our Reformers held to that wasn't) then I don't. My authority is Scripture, not Calvin, not Luther. Calvinism is just a name to contrast against things like Arminianism. I believe Calvinism is the simply the most consistant view of the Bible.

If you believe there is no God YSSCR (you should seriously consider repenting)

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. - Paul in Athens (Acts 17:30-32)

[udontknowmickey]

To sum it all up, I have responded to every single argument and statement that Bluff has made in his claims against Scripture and Orthodox Christianity. I have demonstrated that his requirements on an authority were intellectually dishonest in that they were unequally applied to both sides and that his interpretation of some verses were outright incorrect when taken into the context of the surrounding passages and the Book as a whole. I have given (as best as I was able) an interpretation of one specific passage (Romans 9) that clearly refutes the idea of predestination because of a foreknowledge of free choices and affirms complete predestination before people are born, before they have done anything, not because of what they have done. With all the questions I have posed, Bluff has refused to answer, ignored, or asserted things without justification. This finally dropped into simply saying that Calvin was a moron and he didn’t want to respond to this thread anymore.

In short: I (in actuality, the Christian worldview) has defend itself against all claims and attacks, demonstrating them to be irrational and superfluous. Bluff’s worldview has not furnished him with any answers other than those that are irrelevant or circular. No interpretation, no proof, just assertions. This is all documented below. Basically this was a no contest discussion.

Now, we didn’t get into the question of justification, which is a major dividing line between Catholics and Protestants, but I will take some time to emphasize that difference.

Protestants believe that we are justified, or made righteous (same term in the Greek), by faith alone through Christ alone, by God’s grace alone, apart from works. There is plenty of Scripture to back this up (which I will provide if anyone is interested). This means that the Catholic system of beliefs which is taught by Rome which claims that we are justified by faith and works is completely inconsistent with Scripture and thus Catholics who follow the teachings of Rome are worshipping a false God. This places them (as David observed) in the exact same boat as everyone else before the throne of God.

Bluff, I know that you probably will reject this outright, but my claim to Scripture compels me to make this call. God commands you (and all of us) to repent of our false idols, of our false Gods, of the Pope, of materialism, of money, of internet addiction, even of *gasp* gambling addiction. All who die without knowing the saving grace of being justified by faith alone will be lost, but this means that those who come to know it now will be saved. I know that I on my own cannot convince you, or anyone else of that, but it is His prerogative to have mercy on whom He wills. I encourage you to read the Scriptures, to seek God, to meditate on the Holiness of His commands. If you come to the realization that you have fallen short, that you can’t work your own salvation, that all that you’ve done has been sin, then know that God has already begun His work in you. Cry out to Christ for deliverance, and He will save you, for the first fruits of regeneration is repentance.

To God Alone Be the Glory.

The summary:

BluffThis challenged me with a number of statements regarding Protestant doctrine and interpretation of predestination.

BluffThis: If you believe that Scripture is to be your only infallible authority, who’s interpretation is to be followed?

Me:
An interpretation is to be authoritative only if it is consistent with Scripture. No one interpretation is to be followed blindly without checking it against Scripture. A question that I wish I thought of at the time, but will now interject now is: Who’s interpretation of the Pope do we follow? Silly question right? But it’s the same one that’s being posed against Scripture. We can also ask another one. Who’s interpretation of the interpreter do we follow? And so on down the line.

BluffThis: You’re wrong. The Roman Church teaches the authority of tradition. Support for this is found in the end of the book of John where it says that Jesus did a lot of other things that weren’t recorded.

Me: Can you demonstrate one thing that Jesus taught that was not explicitly contained in Scripture?

BluffThis: Doctrines of Mary.

I have let this one slip by in my rush to answer his responses, but a follow up:
Me: Can you demonstrate that Jesus talked about this? You talked about the silence of church history on predestination (which I have shown irrelevant), but what does church history say on the doctrine of Mary? Can you give one early church father quote that teaches the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? The Bodily Assumption?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Bluff: All the denominations out there means that sola scriptura (the doctrine that Scripture is to be the only infallible authority) is false

Me: The number of denominations is irrelevant to the truthfulness of Scripture. The case is easily seen when applying the same exact statements to the Roman Church, replacing denomination with systems of thought. All the different systems of thought means that the Roman Church isn’t an authoritative interpreter. He responded in much the same way I did. We are back to step 1.

Bluff: Without an authoritative interpreter, this means that God has allowed a situation where we cannot be sure of possessing the sound doctrine that He taught.

Me: So what?

Bluff: Take that back! I’m not going to respond to you unless you take that back!

Me: It seems like God has allowed it in the past, like when he sends Jesus to speak in parables (quotes Mark 4) where Scripture says the reason is so that those who hear may not understand. It sounds like God doesn’t want them to hear! Thus you must defend your statement when you say that God wants us all to be sure of possessing sound doctrine.

Bluff: Calvin was a moron; I’m not going to talk to you anymore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a side note, we got sidetracked in the issue of divine revelation, I misunderstood what he meant, and he thought I was contradicting myself.

Bluff: No early church leaders believed in predestination

Me: Whether or not early church leaders believed in predestination is irrelevant if it can be shown from Scripture. Even then, I provided you with a link to Augustine’s refutation of the Pelagian Heresy, which is filled with predestination. I noticed you didn’t bother to read this.

Bluff: (No response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Bluff: There are different interpretations of predestination. I believe that it means that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative response, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.

Me: I presented my view from Scripture, quoting texts which demonstrated very clearly that God prepared some vessels for destruction and some for glory. That God hated Esau and loved Jacob, before they had done anything good or bad, not because of works, but because of his call. This demonstrates (without further Scripture that would lead us to deny these truths and interpret them in a different manner) that God choose things before what Jacob and Esau actually did, and not because of works. Thus the idea of foreseen negative response is refuted

Bluff: Your passage doesn’t contradict my interpretation.

~~~~~~~~~

Bluff: Without the Roman Church, Protestants would not have had the Bible. God has entrusted to the Roman church the Bible, thus it is the only interpreter of the Bible.

Me: But the Roman Church wouldn’t have had the OT without the Hebrews… therefore the Pharisees are the only interpreter of the Bible

Bluff: (No response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Bluff: But God wouldn’t have given the Bible without also giving someone to interpret it. Otherwise non-Christians could interpret the Bible.

Me: Doesn’t Jesus require that the Pharisees properly interpret the Bible in all his rebukes to them? Aren’t the Bereans in Acts 17 commended for testing what Paul says against Scripture instead of rebuked for checking what an Apostle says?

Bluff: (no response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Me: Has the Roman Church infallibly defined what it means by tradition? Has the Roman Church infallibly given an interpretation of any of the passages we are citing? If so, please quote them, if not, why are you arguing your interpretation against mine again? Has the Roman Church listed one single thing that Jesus or the Apostles taught that aren’t contained in the Scriptures? Can you defend any of this historically?

Bluff (no response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Subfallen: Would God first reveal the true interpretation of Scripture to an egomaniac and sadistic murderer (link to article)? If you cannot answer “no” to this, then YSSCKY.

Me: Your statement is riddled with fallacies (cites 3). I follow the Bible and not a person. I agree with Calvin’s interpretations only as far as they agree with Scripture.

The end.