The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Christians call this Monotheism?

>.>
I though you believed in the Messiah

They must be one of the men who came from Jerusalem that Paul warned the faithful in Acts, and Galatians about.

[Efraim-Judah]

Christians call this Monotheism?

>.>
I though you believed in the Messiah

I do believe in Messiah. But making him out to be God? I do no such thing.

[New confederate ramenia]

The image, while making me laugh a bit, is a misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity, due to this:

Christians call this Monotheism?

It's one God, so it is Monotheism.

[The Alexanderians]

>.>
I though you believed in the Messiah

I do believe in Messiah. But making him out to be God? I do no such thing.

>.>
<.<
o....k...

[Diopolis]

The image, while making me laugh a bit, is a misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity, due to this:

Christians call this Monotheism?

Of course. The Scutum Fidei shows God in the center, not gods. It's a flippant answer, but it's also one that expresses the central truth of it: each person of the trinity is the same God.

[Schiltzberg]

>.>
I though you believed in the Messiah

I do believe in Messiah. But making him out to be God? I do no such thing.

Doesn't it seem strange what you are saying? It's because nobody else believes it, and it wouldn't make sense if you were the only person in the world to follow the true religion. God is too jealous to only have a handful of followers.

[The Alexanderians]

I do believe in Messiah. But making him out to be God? I do no such thing.

Doesn't it seem strange what you are saying? It's because nobody else believes it, and it wouldn't make sense if you were the only person in the world to follow the true religion. God is too jealous to only have a handful of followers.

By self admittance no less

[Efraim-Judah]

I do believe in Messiah. But making him out to be God? I do no such thing.

Doesn't it seem strange what you are saying? It's because nobody else believes it, and it wouldn't make sense if you were the only person in the world to follow the true religion. God is too jealous to only have a handful of followers.

I'm not the only one.

"Narrow is the path"

[The Alexanderians]

Doesn't it seem strange what you are saying? It's because nobody else believes it, and it wouldn't make sense if you were the only person in the world to follow the true religion. God is too jealous to only have a handful of followers.

I'm not the only one.

"Narrow is the path"

Too narrow and no one else will walk it

[Efraim-Judah]

I'm not the only one.

"Narrow is the path"

Too narrow and no one else will walk it

There are many who are willing to walk in Covenant with YHVH.

[The Alexanderians]

Too narrow and no one else will walk it

There are many who are willing to walk in Covenant with YHVH.

Yes of course but on paths wide enough, not single person trails

[Efraim-Judah]

There are many who are willing to walk in Covenant with YHVH.

Yes of course but on paths wide enough, not single person trails

You think there is only 1 Messianic Jew and Gentile? No There are many Messianic Jews and Gentiles.

[Herskerstad]

(Image)

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

It's really not.

To be honest, I've never really understood why Christians attach such significance to a concept present in so many other, much earlier, non-Abrahamic religions.

Care to share a couple?

[Mishpat and Tzedek]

Indeed. Are Baptists the only ones associated with it?

No, it's mainly associated with Reformed theology. It's just that historically a lot of baptists ascribed to reformed theology about salvation.

But the general idea of election, in which this idea of 'perseverance of the saints' is rooted and which is nowadays associated mostly with reformed theology is in essence really much older than the reformation. Think Augustine, Council of Orange, Gregory of Rimini etc.

Or take for instance Thomas of Aquinas, who affirms that the predestined will infallibly be saved. In essence that is what the reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints is about; those whom are elected by God to be saved will infallibly be saved. See http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm for Aquinas about predestination. In article 6 he argues for the fact that the predestined will infallibly be saved.

[Luminesa]

Indeed. Are Baptists the only ones associated with it?

No, it's mainly associated with Reformed theology. It's just that historically a lot of baptists ascribed to reformed theology about salvation.

But the general idea of election, in which this idea of 'perseverance of the saints' is rooted and which is nowadays associated mostly with reformed theology is in essence really much older than the reformation. Think Augustine, Council of Orange, Gregory of Rimini etc.

Or take for instance Thomas of Aquinas, who affirms that the predestined will infallibly be saved. In essence that is what the reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints is about; those whom are elected by God to be saved will infallibly be saved. See http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm for Aquinas about predestination. In article 6 he argues for the fact that the predestined will infallibly be saved.

Aquinas was never for predestination. Or for "once saved always saved".
Literally the first line of Article 6 says that predestination is not a sure bet.

My opinion: Is salvation a gift of God? Absolutely. But gifts can be lost. Or broken. Or stolen.

I got a bracelet from a friend for my birthday. It broke.
I got shoes from my mom for Christmas. They fell apart.

Salvation is a special gift one must defend and take care of all their life. People
take care of their houses because they are precious to them. We must defend our souls
because they are precious to us.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Yes of course but on paths wide enough, not single person trails

You think there is only 1 Messianic Jew and Gentile? No There are many Messianic Jews and Gentiles.

Yeah...theres probably 2 billion Christians, but not many original Jews that follow Christ are left outside the Ebionites that is.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You think there is only 1 Messianic Jew and Gentile? No There are many Messianic Jews and Gentiles.

Yeah...theres probably 2 billion Christians, but not many original Jews that follow Christ are left outside the Ebionites that is.

It's really a pointless endeavor. Efraim had been proven wrong so many times, and he still refuses to see reason.

[Menassa]

You think there is only 1 Messianic Jew and Gentile? No There are many Messianic Jews and Gentiles.

Yeah...theres probably 2 billion Christians, but not many original Jews that follow Christ are left outside the Ebionites that is.

I wouldn't count that is proof against Efraim's beliefs, given Deuteronomy 7:7

[Mishpat and Tzedek]

Aquinas was never for predestination. Or for "once saved always saved".
Literally the first line of Article 6 says that predestination is not a sure bet.

My opinion: Is salvation a gift of God? Absolutely. But gifts can be lost. Or broken. Or stolen.

I got a bracelet from a friend for my birthday. It broke.
I got shoes from my mom for Christmas. They fell apart.

Salvation is a special gift one must defend and take care of all their life. People
take care of their houses because they are precious to them. We must defend our souls
because they are precious to us.

I'm sorry, but you didn't read Aquinas properly. It's not a problem. You made a very common misunderstanding. Aquinas writes in a particular form that is employed by scholastic theologians and it seems you misunderstood it. He first gives several possible opinions, then he gives his own opinion and then he refutes the possible opinions that he mentioned earlier. It's kind of difficult to read it if you're not used to it. But these scholastic texts are very analytical giving several arguments for all the different options. You can see throughout the summa that this is how Aquinas writes (and in fact this is the scholastic method; they all write like that). He asks a question, then he gives possible objections, then he gives his own opinion and then he provides counter-arguments for the objections that he raised before. But if you read through this it's really beyond dispute that Aquinas himself argues for predestination.

So in article 6, the question he poses is 'whether predestination is certain', first he raises three possible objections to predestination being certain, then he gives his own opinion and then he replies to the three objections, arguing for his own opinion. If you read the parts after the objections, which begin with "on the contrary" and "I answer that", it's very clear that Aquinas himself affirms the belief that predestination is certain.

So I think you read the first objection and thought it was Aquinas his own opinion, but there he is actually just giving some possible arguments against the idea that predestination is certain, which he later refutes in the "reply to objection" paragraphs. To be honest, some of his replies here are a bit awkward to me and I don't understand everything he is getting at, but if you recognize the form that Aquinas writes in, it's actually very obvious that he argues for the idea that predestination is infallible in its effect and that in this chapter he is arguing for predestination is general.

[Pope Joan]

Synod of Dort: God predestines some to damnation from birth; nothing they can do will change this.

Isn't this the logical corollary and outcome of predestination reasoning? It is all an assault upon free will.

As for me, I side with the Wife of Bath.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Synod of Dort: God predestines some to damnation from birth; nothing they can do will change this.

Isn't this the logical corollary and outcome of predestination reasoning? It is all an assault upon free will.

As for me, I side with the Wife of Bath.

Predestination as an insult to the spirit of humanity.

[Herskerstad]

Synod of Dort: God predestines some to damnation from birth; nothing they can do will change this.

Isn't this the logical corollary and outcome of predestination reasoning? It is all an assault upon free will.

As for me, I side with the Wife of Bath.

If one is to go by the concept of Libertarian Free Will, then the amount of times God himself alters or at times even violates it in the bible is rather hard to count. Be it by the removal of traits/blessings, due punishments be them direct or from natural disasters, and should Free Will be that which justification partially relies on, then anyone who'd be damned after a direct action of God would essentially be reprobates whom's free will chance was cut short by the almighty one himself. Likewise, the ones whom he brings to Christ to which is a requirement to coming to him in the first place seems indicative of how far free will can carry one.

[Herskerstad]

Synod of Dort: God predestines some to damnation from birth; nothing they can do will change this.

Isn't this the logical corollary and outcome of predestination reasoning? It is all an assault upon free will.

As for me, I side with the Wife of Bath.

Predestination as an insult to the spirit of humanity.

How many are saved by this spirit of humanity again?

As for the one who frequently seem to insult it, well.

Romans 8:29–30 “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. ”

[Herskerstad]

Also, I know this is a Christian Discussion Thread, but for those whom it may apply. Please pray for France. This is in direct relations to the recent/ongoing catastrophe.

Thank you.

[The Flutterlands]

Also, I know this is a Christian Discussion Thread, but for those whom it may apply. Please pray for France. This is in direct relations to the recent/ongoing catastrophe.

Thank you.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1899107-paris-terror-attack-bomb-explosion-after-france-germany-match-shooting-at-locations/

Wow... God bless those people.