FK, I don't have to accuse Protestantism of heresy. That has been established long ago.
Your particular side is the "everything is a magical mystery" side, meaning you claim a universal pass by not being able to explain ANYTHING
I will leave the "everything is a magical mystery" for another time, but pray tell what have you explained? Your side offers rationalizations, trying at all cost to fit that which doesn't fit, by mashing it, ignoring it, de nying it, cutting it out, and what not. It was your side that decided that Jewish canon was "true" and Christian canon was false. How "inspired" is that? I am still waiting for specific proofs FK, and I am getting generalities dumped on me in response.
I am expected to accept a priori postulates which lack any proof, and my refusal is met with indignation and borderline insults. How dare I question the "facts" of "true" believers? This is rather pathetic, FK.
The NT tells us that Christ performed miracles and as a result of them many believed. Even Christ did not simply preach. Preaching is easy. Anyone can do whatever he or she wants with words. But they are just words.
That is a very fair and common misunderstanding by Apostolics who have not had the benefit of having the principles being explained in painstaking detail to them more than a dozen times!
Obviously, your "explanation" doesn't seem to carry much weight unless someone simply resigns himself to "official truth" and accepts everything that is dished out without a shred of any evidence that such "explanations" are based in fact.
However, given your view of the Bible, scripture arguments carry no weight with you
So, all you have is the Bible? That is your only "proof?" Every major religion has similar "proofs." The Bible you offer is written by men (accoridng to Luke, John, Mark, etc., not accoridng to God); the Jews offer Moses and the prophets; and the Muslims Mohammad. They all claim Gos "spoke" with them and guided them or told them what to write. That's your "proof?"
And what did Christians have to offer in the beginning when the Bible wasn't completed yet, when not even Apsotle Paul wrote a single line? What did they offer as "proof" then to "prove" their faith? And many actually died because of that faith, so it had to be pretty convincing! Imagine, all that without the Bible. And now 2,000 years later the Christians have no other proof that the Bible? Something is missing here. How can my not putting much weight on the Bible thwart your ability to prove this rock-solid faith of yours to me?
But I can assure you that I can convince anyone of gravity, which is itself a great mystery, by the way. No one has seen it. No one can package it. No one can dice it. But it's there because we have direct evidence of it; no bind faith and no a priori acceptance is required!
God predestines His elect from before the foundations of the world
No, FK, some interpret the Bible (based mostly on the writings of one man, +Paul) that this is so. This presupposes two things: one, the Bible must be true for this to be true. Again, you have no proof without the Bible and in order for the Bible to be a "proof" it must be accepted as absolutely true.
Rather naïve, don't you think?
The key difference here is that your God guarantees NOTHING
I know only that it is not in the animal nature to be merciful, and therefore believe that mercy is not of this world. That which is the source of mercy is by necessity merciful, and that is the only guarantee I see in it. Outside of that, I see no other guarantees.
By being merciful, we become like that which is the source of mercy, which is by necessity opposite of our animal instinct.
Kosta forced "love" no love; it is rape
FK: Then you believe that all Godly parents rape their young children
If they use force to get their children to "love" them, yes! If a parent chains a child in the basement until the child starts to "love" and "appreciate" the parents, it is not love, FK. No parent would use such methods our of "love." People who abuse their loved ones don't do it out of love. But then again a sadist and a masochist may make a "perfect" couple.
Again, though, these were all guaranteed. Given the surety of God's word, His personal guarantee, I see all of these as being part of one thing. Therefore, what happens within time DOES matter, but it is guaranteed by God.
That's a very long and roundabout way of saying that in the Reformed theology it is believed that those who were to be saved were saved long before Christ died for their sins, FK.
However, God allows lapses for His own reasons in accordance with His plan.
Please provide biblical verses that spell out "God's plan." You said in another post that God uses sin to accomplish his plan. In other words, sin is an essential part of God's so-called "plan." In other words, evil is a creature of God in the Reformed belief!
Peter said THE Son
"And all of you are (E)sons of the Most High" [Ps 82:6]
St. Peter simply repeated Hosea 1:10 "It will be said to them,"You are the sons of the living God" in the singular.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." [Mat 5:9]
And +Peter wasn't the only or the first: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly )God's Son!" [Mat 14:33]
"I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God." [Mat 26:63]
Here it is clear that the "son of God" is associated with the messiah, but being a Jewish messiah there is no implication of deity, so none of those biblical references imply any deity. The title "son of God"is not so uncommon in the entire Bible and it doesn't always mean what is implied in the Christian understanding of the word.
Well, then the Father really did NOT impart understanding, contradicting what Jesus said. Do you say that the Father revealed a deception to Peter? You literally have Jesus saying: "Blessed are you, Peter, for my Father has deceived you into thinking I am not who I really am."!!!
If +Peter knew what he was saying he would have said what +Thomas said "You are my Lord and my God." +Peter was calling Jesus a Messiah in the Jewish sense, in other words a human anointed of God who will be a warrior king responsible for restoring Israel's kingdom.
FK, I don't have to accuse Protestantism of heresy. That has been established long ago.
NOT CORRECT, not on this. We are talking about the identity of Christ. If you REALLY thought we were wrong on this, then you would have to right to question whether we were even Christians in the first place. YET, from your side, that only happens once in a while. So, I'm not sure what the actual belief is. If you say that we are wrong on who Christ IS, then you should also say that we are not Christians. This is why I made my above comment.
I will leave the "everything is a magical mystery" for another time, but pray tell what have you explained?
Normally, we offer scripture as proof. Some like it, some do not.
Your side offers rationalizations, trying at all cost to fit that which doesn't fit, by mashing it, ignoring it, denying it, cutting it out, and what not.
I didn't put it together, but as I found it, it all fits well enough together for me. (Praise be to God!) I think it actually takes proactive work to make it NOT fit. To me it is like saying to an atheist that he has more faith than I do to believe that there is NOT a God.
It was your side that decided that Jewish canon was "true" and Christian canon was false. How "inspired" is that?
It was very inspired. How can you call the Septuagint "Christian canon" (in opposition) when it was written before there were any Christians, as you would argue?
I am still waiting for specific proofs FK, and I am getting generalities dumped on me in response.
And I am still waiting for you to tell me, and I have asked, what you will accept as proof. When I go to a bar and order a beer, the bartender will ask me for an ID because I am so handsome and youthful looking. As proof that I am of age I show him my driver's license and he accepts that as proof. So far, you haven't told us what you need to see.
The NT tells us that Christ performed miracles and as a result of them many believed. Even Christ did not simply preach. Preaching is easy. Anyone can do whatever he or she wants with words. But they are just words.
NO, NO, NO! :) Scripture TOTALLY rejects what you are saying:
John 6:63 : The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Christ's words are infinitely more than "just words".
So, all you have is the Bible? That is your only "proof?" Every major religion has similar "proofs." The Bible you offer is written by men (according to Luke, John, Mark, etc., not according to God); the Jews offer Moses and the prophets; and the Muslims Mohammad. They all claim God "spoke" with them and guided them or told them what to write. That's your "proof?"
For the things we talk about? Yeah. That might sound pretty pathetic to you. But the Bible truly is part of my identity. It not only speaks TO me, it also speaks THROUGH me. And this is no boasting. I had nothing to do with it. I do not say ME versus YOU. God touches all believers. God's word IS spirit and it is LIFE! :)
And what did Christians have to offer in the beginning when the Bible wasn't completed yet, when not even Apostle Paul wrote a single line? What did they offer as "proof" then to "prove" their faith?
They had the POWER of God's word!!! :) What does that mean to you? Jesus said:
Matt 22:29 : Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Acts 1:8 : But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
My opinion is that many Apostolics dismiss, perhaps accidentally, the "power of God's word" because it would seem to detract from the power of Apostolic men.
And many actually died because of that faith, so it had to be pretty convincing! Imagine, all that without the Bible. And now 2,000 years later the Christians have no other proof that the Bible? Something is missing here. How can my not putting much weight on the Bible thwart your ability to prove this rock-solid faith of yours to me?
Nothing is missing here, and you have not thwarted my proof. I offer scripture. We disagree on whether scripture is proof.
FK: "God predestines His elect from before the foundations of the world."
No, FK, some interpret the Bible (based mostly on the writings of one man, +Paul) that this is so. This presupposes two things: one, the Bible must be true for this to be true. Again, you have no proof without the Bible and in order for the Bible to be a "proof" it must be accepted as absolutely true. Rather naïve, don't you think?
Not at all. God gives us our understanding. The understanding God has given me is that the Bible is true. Has He given you a different understanding?
And I note that you say "the writings of one man". How do you determine that Paul is wrong, but the uninspired Fathers you like are right? That has always seemed very odd to me.
FK: "Again, though, these were all guaranteed. Given the surety of God's word, His personal guarantee, I see all of these as being part of one thing. Therefore, what happens within time DOES matter, but it is guaranteed by God."
That's a very long and roundabout way of saying that in the Reformed theology it is believed that those who were to be saved were saved long before Christ died for their sins, FK.
Well, ......... YES. That's right. :) That is, within the context of God's perfection. Whatever God has ordained is as good as already done. The rest is mechanics.
Please provide biblical verses that spell out "God's plan."
God's plan is revealed in ALL verses between (but including) Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21.
You said in another post that God uses sin to accomplish his plan. In other words, sin is an essential part of God's so-called "plan." In other words, evil is a creature of God in the Reformed belief!
WOW! You play the telephone game in your own head and get the predictable results. A total distortion from the starting point. Amazing. :)
FK: "Peter said THE Son."
"And all of you are (E)sons of the Most High" [Ps 82:6]
St. Peter simply repeated Hosea 1:10 "It will be said to them,"You are the sons of the living God" in the singular.
You cannot be serious. I am disappointed that you think I would fall for that.
Here it is clear that the "son of God" is associated with the messiah, but being a Jewish messiah there is no implication of deity, so none of those biblical references imply any deity.
I have asked before, and I have not gotten an answer, and I will ask again: What did Jesus mean when He said:
Matt 16:17 : Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
I would take what you have said as a disagreement with what Jesus said.
If +Peter knew what he was saying he would have said what +Thomas said "You are my Lord and my God." +Peter was calling Jesus a Messiah in the Jewish sense, in other words a human anointed of God who will be a warrior king responsible for restoring Israel's kingdom.
And then from God's own mouth He blesses the catastrophic error that you profess. Jesus said that the Father revealed to Peter what Peter said. YOU SAY THAT WHAT PETER SAID WAS DEAD WRONG. How do you explain this?