Tag: Christianity

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words.

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.
– Luke 24:1-12

After the most recent Team Calvin exercise, The Responsible Puppet felt that he had caught me committing a Calvinist-style X=Not X contortion:

I looked at his Chain of Events and saw these two statements:

(A) The Father draws everyone.

(B) Some . . . do not permit themselves to be drawn.

Later he agreed to the statement “Some who God draws are not drawn.”

This, I maintain, is a contortion at least as bad as what he claims the Calvinists make.

Setting aside the obvious lack of conflict due to the intrinsic difference between subject and object, Jamsco assumes my statement must be a contortion because he cannot conceive of a difference between a successful draw and an unsuccessful one. To him, the very act of drawing is enough to ensure the success of the action. But he is wrong. For, when we consider what Jesus Christ himself said of the event that we celebrate today, Good Friday, it is abundantly clear that my interpretation of the concept “draw” as a resistible call rather than an irresistible pull is the correct one.

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.” – John 12:31-33

When he was lifted up to his death on the cross, Jesus Christ drew everyone to himself. His sacrifice was offered on behalf of everyone, not merely John Calvin’s “elect”. And yet, Jesus was perfectly clear that not everyone would be saved despite of his sacrificial atonement for Man’s sin. Therefore, it is not possible to escape the conclusion that even though both Jesus and God the Father have drawn everyone, salvation is not solely accomplished by the will of the Father or the Son. Salvation requires the will of the repentant sinner as well.

There is no need to go off onto tangents concerning the theoretical limits of divine capability and various metaphors of mortality when Jesus Christ’s own words make it clear that the sinner must act of his own free will, repent, and accept the sacrifice offered on his behalf, if he is to be saved.

God did His part by sending His Son. Jesus did his part by accepting his death. And the protestations of Team Calvin notwithstanding, the question that you must ask yourself is if you are willing to do your part and accept the gift of life that was offered on this day some twenty centuries ago.

The eighth point in Jamsco’s attempted summary of my doctrinal beliefs is a succinct one. “8. The Trinity is obvious BS. It’s easily proved. [Direct quote from a comment here].” As it happens, he got that one entirely correct, which is not the case in two of the other ten points.

Now, the falsity of the doctrine can be proved in a variety of ways, but since we’re dealing with mainstream Churchianity here, I’ll utilize the easiest and most obvious because those who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity also subscribe to the doctrine of divine omniscience. Note that since I am skeptical of both doctrines, this argument obviously does not reflect my own theological beliefs. Let’s follow the logic:

1. The Trinity is God as three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. These three divine persons are combined in one being we call God.

2. This one being is omniscient, and therefore knows everything.

3. It is written, in Matthew 24:36: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient, and furthermore, do not possess the same knowledge as the Father.

4. Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal and consubstantial with the Father. They may or may not be co-eternal.

5. Being neither co-equal nor consubstantial, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one being with the Father.

6. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

I further note that we can branch from (3) and prove the falsehood of the Trinity in a slightly different manner.

4b. Since God is omniscient and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not, neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are God.

5b. Therefore, God is one person, the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is a false one.

It should not escape one’s attention that if one insists on clinging to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is necessary to abandon the doctrine of divine omniscience. Obviously, I subscribe to neither, but it is not possible to subscribe to both. My perspective is that divinity can be most usefully understood in a manner akin to human royalty. Prince Harry may be royal, but no one is under the impression that he is co-equal and consubstantial with his grandmother, the sovereign Queen Elizabeth. This is in keeping with the idea that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are Man’s advocates, they are not his judge.

And for another perspective from one with doubts about the Trinity doctrine, this is an interesting summary of Isaac Newton’s studies of the subject. Another one can be found here.

In one notebook it is clear that, already in the early 1670’s, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity.

Most humanists completely fail to understand that the current scientific hypotheses that free will does not exist are not a conceptual step forward, but rather a giant leap backward to the fifth century AD. This can be seen in David Boorstin’s explanation of the importance of the Christian concept of free will in The Discoverers:

The popular claims of pagan astrologers disturbed the early prophets of Christianity. Church Fathers who declared their own power to forecast everyman’s fate in the next world begrudged the powers of prophecy to those who pretended to know any man’s destiny on earth. If the astrologers’ horoscopes meant what they said, where was the room for free will, for freedom to choose good over evil, to forsake Mammon or Caesar for Jesus Christ?

The very struggle to become a Christian—to abandon pagan superstition for Christian free will—seemed to be a struggle against astrology. Saint Augustine (354–430) recalls in his Confessions: “Those impostors then, whom they style Mathematicians, I consulted without scruple; because they seemed to use no sacrifice, nor to pray to any spirit for their divinations. ‘ And he was tempted by the astrologers’ counsel: “The cause of thy sin is inevitably determined in heaven; this did Venus, or Saturn, or Mars: That man, forsooth, flesh and blood, and proud corruption, might be blameless; while the Creator and Ordainer of heaven and the stars is to bear the blame.”

Astrology remained the bête noire of the Christian Church Fathers. Faith in a star-written destiny had dissuaded Romans, such as Emperor Tiberius, from paying homage even to their pagan gods. Tertullian (c. 160–c. 230) warned against astrology because “men, presuming that we are disposed of by the immutable arbitrament of the stars, think on that account that God is not to be sought after.”
– The Discoverers, Chapter 3, “God and the Astrologers”

Here we see the link between a variety of belief systems that are united in one object, in their opposition to free will. Astrology, secular humanism, rational materialism, Islam, and even Calvinism are all opposed to what is ultimately the core basis of Christianity, which is the free and voluntary decision to submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

I find it both ironic and telling that Calvinists and a collection of cutting-edge atheist scientists are united in claiming that Man has no ability to choose to worship God. For is it not the Adversary who claims that Man is a helpless prisoner of fate and Jesus Christ who declares that he came to set Man free?

The astrologers blamed the Creator instead of the individual. The scientists blame – well, their theories aren’t formulated yet and are still self-contradictory and incoherent – a variety of things. The Calvinists follow, to varying degrees depending upon the Calvinist, the astrological lead in assigning blame to the Ordainer of heaven and the stars rather than the individual. It isn’t necessary to resort to the fallacy of guilt by association to question the way in which so much Calvinistic thinking tends to harmonize so comfortably with that of atheists and pagan astrologers.

I readily grant that St. Augustine is usually cited on the Calvinist side of the debate and that John Calvin derived many of his doctrinal positions from Augustine. It is worth remembering, then, that Augustine had previously found the astrological arguments to be persuasive.

EE. “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND ; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” (Luke 10:27)

Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:25, 26)

How do you reconcile the Second Great Command with Jesus’ statement about hating one’s father and mother, etc.?

A) Jesus contradicts Himself
B) Hate != hate
C) One verse is hyperbole
D) Other

There are two ways to reconcile it. My assumption is that the verses about hating everyone is hyperbole. However, it is also possible to reconcile the two verses by noting that the Second Great Command is in response to the question “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” while the statement about hate concerns what one must do to become Jesus’s disciple. Since “inheriting eternal life” is not necessarily synonymous with “becoming a disciple”, the two passages cannot be regarded as being definitively in contradiction.

But, as I said, I incline towards the hyperbole explanation. And with this answer, I conclude my part of the Team Calvin Challenge. I lead it to you, the reader, to determine if you believe that these five answers show me to be guilty of the same contortions we have previously observed in Team Calvin’s various interpretations of Scripture.

Team Calvin: Question 1
Team Calvin: Question 2
Team Calvin: Question 3
Team Calvin: Question 4

DD. Lamentations 3:31-33

For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not afflict from his heart or grieve the children of men.

Vox, does the Lord cause grief? If so, does he act against his will?

Yes, on occasion, when it is necessary in order to fulfill His grand design of Man’s salvation and the reclamation of a fallen world. This does not mean He is the cause of all grief.

No, He does not act against His will, although since He acts against things He previously willed, such as when He removed Saul’s kingship and gave it to David, it is obvious that His will is both dynamic and responsive to the consequences of Man’s free will.

Team Calvin: Question 1
Team Calvin: Question 2
Team Calvin: Question 3

CC. John 6:37, 44 and 45

All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.(…) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

If there are those that get saved without God’s prior action (Pelagianism), or those that refuse the action (Arminianism), then where do they fit between the “no one” of the first verse and “every one” of the second? Please describe a possible chain of events for such a person so that it doesn’t conflict with any of the verses.

First, it is necessary to correct the error in the question. Pelagianism is “the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid.” This does not mean that “there are those that get saved without God’s prior action”, but rather, that there are those who are not in need of salvation or God’s prior action since they do not merit condemnation. The distinction is significant.

Now to address the direct question. There is obviously no need to figure out where the Pelagian unfallen fit here, since they have no need to come to Jesus Christ for a salvation they do not require. This, however, would appear to be a very small group of people; the Biblical record suggests a potential set of three: Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus Christ himself. So, what remains is to determine where those who require God’s grace but nevertheless refuse it fit between the “no one” of the first verse and “every one” of the second.

And when we consider the verses, it is perfectly obvious where these Arminian refusers fit. They a) have not been given to Jesus, b) have not come to him, and c) have not heard and learned from the Father. But none of this indicates that God does not wish them to be saved, that they have not been drawn by the Father, or that they have not heard the Father.

As is so often the case, Team Calvin’s position is based on a serious failure of reading comprehension. Their concept of election and irresistible grace, as it corresponds with these selected verses, is dependent upon assuming that “draws” is equivalent to “gives” and that “no one can come unless” is equivalent to “everyone must come if”. Not only are these two assumptions not necessarily true, they are quite obviously false on their faces as well in the context of the totality of Scripture.

As for the chain of events:

1. The Father draws everyone, since as per 1 Timothy 4, He “wants all people to be saved. He speaks to them through Creation and through His Spirit. All are taught.
2. Some hear, learn and permit themselves to be drawn. Some hear, do not learn, and do not permit themselves to be drawn. Some do not hear, do not learn, and do not permit themselves to be drawn. See The Parable of the Sower in Mark 4. All are taught, but not everyone learns.
3. Those who permit themselves to be drawn to the Father are given to His Son, Jesus Christ.
4. Those who are given to Jesus Christ go to him.
5. Jesus Christ does not cast out any who come to him, but raises them up on the last day.

I should perhaps mention that based on the various definitions, it is incorrect to describe me as a Arminian since my theological stance is more accurately described as Pelagian. I agree wholeheartedly with Tertullian when he writes: “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…. For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…. Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.

Team Calvin: Question 1
Team Calvin: Question 2

If you aren’t convinced that omniderigistes worship the god of this world rather than the genuine Christian God, you’re probably not paying attention to their words:

Why would God reach down his hand and drag his fierce fingers across rural America killing at least 38 people with 90 tornadoes in 12 states, and leaving some small towns with scarcely a building standing, including churches?

If God has a quarrel with America, wouldn’t Washington, D.C., or Las Vegas, or Minneapolis, or Hollywood be a more likely place to show his displeasure?

We do not ascribe such independent power to Mother Nature or to the devil. God alone has the last say in where and how the wind blows. If a tornado twists at 175 miles an hour and stays on the ground like a massive lawnmower for 50 miles, God gave the command….

Therefore, God’s will for America under his mighty hand, is that every Christian, every Jew, every Muslim, every person of every religion or non-religion, turn from sin and come to Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life. Jesus rules the wind. The tornadoes were his. But before Jesus took any life in rural America, he gave his own on the rugged cross.

Piper’s Jesus is a serial killer. He is a murderer, a slayer of children, and like those who follow his lead, he also appears to be a fairly shameless liar. His Jesus isn’t merely responsible for tornadoes, but also the gulags, the gas chambers, and the guillotines. The more I read of what John Piper has written, the more I am convinced that he worships Satan in the cloak of Jesus, the more it is readily apparent that he worships an antichrist.

Piper states very clearly that he does not ascribe independent power to the devil, but rather to his god. But if I am correct, (and I believe there is copious scriptural evidence and Christian tradition to support my contention that Satan is the ruler of this world and is responsible for much of the evil in it), and if Piper worships the god that he believes is responsible for committing such havoc throughout history for its own mysterious reasons, how can one possibly conclude that the man is anything other than a grievously deceived Satan worshipper?