That is the format of the show. The host reads an answer and you have to respond with a question, eg

Host reads the answer: "The best website in the world"

The contestant responds: "What is Chessgames.com?"

My point was to show that the passages most Calvinists use to make their case are answering the wrong question.

<However if the point is to highlight four biblical verses to support predestination, then it's not hard to come up with a different set of passages...>

Sorry, but it went over my head when I first read it, but now I get it.

Okay, so we're in agreement on this issue? That's excellent!

I looked up <Big Pawn>'s reference to <Steve Jones, former Calvinist> and found his critique of Calvinism to be quite informative...

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/open...

<optimal play> The value of any church teaching depends on who's doing the teaching, and in what church. I once interviewed a Methodist church official who proudly declared, "The first thing I learned in seminary was that the Bible is not the world of God." I think we can do without his teaching, and the teaching he received.

<OCF> I'm sorry you find Calvinism "horrible." But here is Calvin himself, with the same objection you have: <It must also be observed that, although the paternal favor and beneficence of God, or the severity of his justice, is frequently conspicuous in the whole course of his providence, yet sometimes the causes of events are concealed, so that a suspicion intrudes itself, that the revolutions of human affairs are conducted <<by the blind impetuosity of fortune; or the flesh solicits us to murmur, as though God amused himself with tossing men about like tennis-balls.>>> (Quoted in Rushdoony, "Systematic Theology") Obviously Calvin did not believe in a sadistic and capricious God, and has been misrepresented.

Reformed theology, because it values God's laws and is so much at odds with the secular worldview, has been smeared as cruel and hateful.

Are some Calvinists mean and nasty people? Yes. So are some Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, etc.

Anyway, I think I'd be hard pressed to dream up a more irrational theology than Calvinism.It stands common sense and logic on its head>

As for me, I appeal to the fact God is outside of, or superior to, or transcendent of, time. If you watch a video of your favorite movie, you <KNOW> what will happen at the end of the movie. You didn't write the script, you didn't direct the action, you didn't strongarm or bribe the actors, but before the final scene plays, you <KNOW> what will happen.

Why? Because you are outside of, or superior to, or transcendent of, time-time as determined by what is occurring in the movie. Is that a decription of Molinism? I don't know. But it helps me greatly understand the resolution of that tension between God's foreknowledge and His allowing free will.

Yes, as you indicated, that would be a question of whether or not such a possible world is logically possible, like the rock he can't lift, like a square triangle, like a married bachelor and so on.

Perhaps it is not logically possible or feasible for God to create a world where people have free will and evil does not exist, but I have a hard time seeing why it's logically impossible for God to create a world where his people have free will.

I think the doctrine of Middle Knowledge makes Molinism a good model for reconciling God's universal divine sovereignty (divine predestination) with man's free will.

<playground player>, you might find this reading on Middle Knowledge interesting http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/

Molinism is an interesting theory but is just another attempt to try and explain the Sacred Mystery.

Even the division of knowledge into natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge is somewhat absract.

I don't think it really explains anything or provides a useful guide in understanding predestination.

<playground player: <optimal play> The value of any church teaching depends on who's doing the teaching, and in what church.>

Yes, that is correct.

Hence the importance of the Catholic Church remaining true to the teaching of Christ and the apostles over 2,000 years (e.g. Matt 16:17-19).

<I'm not a big believer in the institutional church; and despite Catholicism's reservations, <Sola Scriptura> is the way to go.>

How do you view the idea of Scripture being properly interpreted and understood within a believing community in light of tradition?

What I mean is, without tradition and community, someone could read something or other in Scripture and decide, "Aha! The rest of the Church has been wrong about this for the last 2,000 years and I'm the first person to finally understand this obscure verse! I know I'm right and they're all wrong because I rely on Scripture alone!"

Doesn't <Sola Scriptura> lend itself to a myriad of differing interpretations?

<OhioChessFan> I don't like the analogy of a movie, it implies we're all just actors following a script.

I find analogies and theories unhelpful when we enter into the Sacred Mysteries.

Of course as humans we naturally seek explanations and rationales, but these are ultimately futile.

Quite often they do more to obscure and confuse rather than reveal.

Suggestions such as 'God can't create a rock so big He can't lift it' are totally stupid and fail to recognise that God is not limited by human logic and understanding.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

To say that God can't do something because it is logically impossible, is not to put a limit on God or trespass on his omnipotence. Logic is "the logos" and it was with God from the beginning. Logic, I believe, is an expression of God's nature and as such he can't contradict His nature, but this does not imply a limitation of His power and sovereignty.

Man did not create logic; we discovered it. It makes perfect sense to say that God can't created married bachelors or square circles. To say this does not in any way force God to conform to our limited human understanding.

I do see plenty of examples of forcing God to conform to human understanding, some of them quite controversial, but this is not one of them.

<Molinism is an interesting theory but is just another attempt to try and explain the Sacred Mystery.

Even the division of knowledge into natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge is somewhat absract.>

A "sacred mystery" is just a phrase made up by some other people, not involved in this discussion here, now, today. Just because someone has labeled something a "sacred mystery" doesn't mean it really is a mystery. "Mystery" might be a euphemism to describe a set of contradictions that appear because someone has committed to a fundamental idea that is possibly not true.

This reminds me of when I debated <ugibu> on the Rogoff page. He argued that if dialethiesm is true then we can have instances where both A and -A are true in the same way at the same time. But upon digging a little deeper we discover that dialetheism describes only mathematical problems and doesn't apply to reality. Further, if contradictions do show up in equations like this, instead of accepting it as a truth, we need to understand that these contradictions indicate a flaw in the model.

Hiding behind a so-called "Sacred Mystery" is just a way of protecting some already committed beliefs from the light of scrutiny, it seems to me.

Therefore, being dismissive of Molinism because it appears to be "just another attempt to explain away the sacred mystery" seems to be a weak stance to take, intellectually speaking.

I think Molinism is a deep subject with lots of room for good thinking. The ideas of natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge aren't as abstract as they might seem at first. They definitely do not warrant a brush off as merely another attempt to explain the "sacred mystery". Molinism is an excellent theological model for reconciling divine universal sovereignty with free will, but one must give it a fair shot and try to understand it.

So it is certainly correct to say that 'Logic' is an expression of God's nature and as such He can't contradict His nature, although this does not imply a limitation of His power and sovereignty.

I'm critical of propositions such as 'God can't create married bachelors or square circles' because they are trite and neither prove nor disprove anything.

As Christians, we believe in the Trinity.

"the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

How does this fit into human logic?

As Christians, we believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man.

"The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man."

How does this fit into human logic?

The same with our current discussion of free will and predestination.

This is not to say that God contradicts logic because as we already agreed, logic is an expression of His nature.

It is more a case of the limitations of human logic rather than the limitations of God's power and sovereignty.

I'm not very familiar with dialetheism but I do understand it to be a specifically mathematical concept.

So we do agree here.

<I'm critical of propositions such as 'God can't create married bachelors or square circles' because they are trite and neither prove nor disprove anything.>

Me too, because people posing such questions think that they've discovered something clever, when it fact it is anything but. They don't realize that they give voice to incoherence when they ask if God can do the logically impossible.

<As Christians, we believe in the Trinity.

"the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

How does this fit into human logic? >

As I said earlier, I do not see logic as belonging to or created by humans. Logic (logos) was with God from the beginning. Therefore I do not see logic as a limitation that we are trying to stuff God into, and if He doesn't fit then there is a problem with God or a problem with scripture.

<As Christians, we believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man...How does this fit into human logic?>

You know my thoughts on logic and there not being a problem with "human logic" and so on, but this question about Jesus being God and Man doesn't seem mysterious to me. I am fully man myself but I'm also fully a son, a citizen and so on.

If Jesus personifies himself the He is expressed in physical form. I don't know why some people find this one tricky.

<The same with our current discussion of free will and predestination.>

Since I don't see those examples as problems between scripture and the shortcomings of logic (because logic isn't human) then I think this leaves free will and predestination open for profitable discussion.

What *could* be a problem (not human logic because logic is not human) is the human concepts of free will and or predestination and along with that, God's divine universal sovereignty. If there is a problem then it is in the understanding of these concepts and not basic logical contradiction.

Like dialetheism, if there are contradictions in the conclusion, then it indicates that the model (concepts) are flawed.

<OhioChessFan> I don't like the analogy of a movie, it implies we're all just actors following a script.>

Sounds familiar:

I don't think you have to look very far to find churches, even whole denominations, that go way off the rails in their teaching. There are seminaries that teach goddess-worship and "feminist theology." I wish I were kidding about that, but I'm not.

Most Protestants can point to the RC Church and say, "Where the heck did they ever get **that**?", in reference to certain doctrines. And the Catholics can surely return the favor.

"The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scri...

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

- John 16:12-13

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

- Matthew 16:17-19

The direct unbroken continuous link from Jesus to Peter all the way down to the current pope evidences the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in guiding Christ's Church into all truth.

<playground player: <optimal play> Unless you're living all alone on a desert island, tradition and community are always all around you, so few have to worry about doing without it. I don't think you have to look very far to find churches, even whole denominations, that go way off the rails in their teaching. There are seminaries that teach goddess-worship and "feminist theology." I wish I were kidding about that, but I'm not.>

Exactly right! You answer your own question!

Certain churches and denominations have indeed gone way off the rails in their teaching, hence the importance of a continuous 2,000 year tradition which has been handed on from Jesus to Peter and the apostles all the way down to the current pope.

<Most Protestants can point to the RC Church and say, "Where the heck did they ever get **that**?", in reference to certain doctrines.>

See above! An understanding of tradition going back to the early church will always answer those questions.

<Big Pawn: ... I do not see logic as belonging to or created by humans. Logic (logos) was with God from the beginning. Therefore I do not see logic as a limitation that we are trying to stuff God into, and if He doesn't fit then there is a problem with God or a problem with scripture.>

Yes, I agree with that.

<What *could* be a problem (not human logic because logic is not human) is the human concepts of free will and or predestination and along with that, God's divine universal sovereignty. If there is a problem then it is in the understanding of these concepts and not basic logical contradiction.>

I think you make a good point there!

I don't dispute that the relationship between free will and predestination may be open to profitable discussion, but in devising theories such as Calvinism or Molinism or whatever, I wonder if we have really grasped the essence of what we're theorising about?

That's what I meant when I referred to the 'limitations of human logic' although it might have been more accurate for me to say 'human limitations in understanding the logic behind these revealed truths'.

Anyway, as I said, anything devised by a Jesuit theologian should definitely be taken seriously, so I will look further into 'middle knowledge' if only as a matter of interest.

<diceman: <optimal play: <OhioChessFan> I don't like the analogy of a movie, it implies we're all just actors following a script.>

Sounds familiar:

“All the world’s a stage,/ And all the men and women merely players.”>

Perhaps this might be more pertinent to our present discussion...

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

- Hamlet

<OCF: How do you know they've remained true? How would a person not already convinced of the position you are affirming check the veracity of your claim?>

<opt2: "The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition.">

1=2? We're off to a bad start. I agree the one source for truth must be the word of God.

<“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.>

"you", in context, is the 11 apostles. If you wish to dig into that point, fine, you'll see I'm 100% right on this. The Catholic Church changes the Scriptural context of "you" there to include a large group of people it doesn't in fact apply to. That is one of the main departures from the truth of the Scriptures the RCC has engaged in.

<- John 16:12-13

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

- Matthew 16:17-19 >

Okay, something special is going on with Peter. It is an absolutely foundational, bedrock, necessary, categorical imperative the RCC appeal to Peter's <successors>. Alas, there is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest that. The RCC claims Peter, and <ONLY> Peter, among all the apostles was to have some special authority among his successors, even while some of the other original apostles were still living. That is absolutely indefensible. If you think it is, please appeal to the Scriptures that point out this foundational issue, that Peter's successors were to have a special role in revelation. Failing that, which you will, you will be left with appealing to those successors themselves as proof they had that special calling. This is the indefensibile circularity of the RCC teaching on this matter. It essentially boils down to, "The RCC says the RCC is right." I am not persuaded. There was a time I was persuaded, but not any longer. We can dig into this a little deeper if you wish.

<The direct unbroken continuous link from Jesus to Peter all the way down to the current pope evidences the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in guiding Christ's Church into all truth.>

Anyhow, I used to ask family members, and Catholic friends, "Where does Marianism come from? I can't find it in the Bible--Immaculate Conception and all that." No one ever admitted to knowing the answer: they'd never heard the question before.

Ditto Peter as the supreme head of the Church. How come Paul didn't seem to know about that?

But these issues are sort of a boilerplate division between Catholics and Protestants, and I would hope we have all outgrown the compulsion to make war over them. The 16th and 17th centuries are hardly an advertisement for any kind of organized Christianity.

You are RCC, so it's hard for you to see these things as non-Catholics see them--just as it's hard for me to see your Catholic position. My mother used to suggest I convert to Catholicism, and didn't listen when I said, "But I don't believe in some of the things that they believe in." Like Marianism and the Papacy, for instance.

I strongly agree with this statement. I think the core principles of Christianity are what matter most; those issues that all Christians agree on. This is what C.S. Lewis referred to as Mere Christianity.

Like you, I don't believe in the Papacy and Marianism. I think it's blasphemous to call a man Holy Father and I don't believe in prayer over beads and reciting rehearsed passages over and over again. That seems pagan to me and in every way not Christian.

I do not see Peter as the first Pope and think that you need to be brought up like that to believe it. I didn't like the way Catholics used to read the bible in latin so no one could understand it. I don't think priests or popes can forgive sins. The whole thing seems a blasphemous heresy to me.

But on the other hand, I have a hard time believing that any one of us knows the whole truth as it ought to be known. Who has the correct understanding of real Christianity? There are hundreds and some say thousands of denominations. Do any of them really have it all figured out?

The bible says that the word of God is written in our hearts. If that is true then we don't even really *need* the bible because God will reveal to us what we need to know when we need to know it by the Spirit. The bible is a good thing though and it's good to read the bible, but I'm not so sure that it's good to intellectualize the bible anymore. I think to really understand the bible we need to put the intellect away, be still and have a quiet mind so that the Spirit can reveal to us what we can't understand.

I've now come to the point where I no longer waste my time arguing with other Christians about how to understand scripture. Again, I think it's best to encourage each other and look for areas of agreement, areas that are basic and fundamental to all Christians (there aren't many) and make a point to avoid controversy.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the bible is a collection of writing from lots of different people. The NT was generally accepted as canonized by the 3rd century but who knows who changed what in the texts.

The church leaders and even the Roman Emperor (who put together the famous council) were on a mission to put together all the documents that seemed legitimate and cast aside those that they deemed apocryphal. But given the history of church people and emperors, it's not hard to imagine that certain books or passages were added or removed to suit the egos of the leaders.

Just look at how biased conversations between Catholics and Protestants can be today. Imagine if it were up to us to decide which books belonged in the bible and which didn't. A Catholic would want to include books and passages that confirm his belief and likewise for a Protestant, let alone how kinds and emperors feel.

My point is that we aren't 100% sure that everything in the bible is correct, and if it's not then how should we know the truth? I think we have to go back to the idea that the Word is written in our hearts and the Lord can reveal the truth to us if our mind is quiet and still.

<BP: I strongly agree with this statement. >

Color me shocked.

<I think the core principles of Christianity are what matter most; those issues that all Christians agree on.>

I disagree. I am 100% sure the people here don't agree on how a person is saved. That's as core as it gets.

As for accepting blasphemies from another church but relying on a shared core faith, 1 Timothy 4:1-3

<Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.>

Would you accept a church that does those very things, so long as they hold to the same core principles as you? Paul identifies that church as departing from the faith. There's some point that happens, and you'll notice that Paul identifies that point by an appeal to something outside of what nearly everyone would call a core principle. You are simply massively wrong here, and need to reconsider your position.

<But on the other hand, I have a hard time believing that any one of us knows the whole truth as it ought to be known.>

The Bible indicates to me God expects that from His people. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

< Who has the correct understanding of real Christianity? There are hundreds and some say thousands of denominations. Do any of them really have it all figured out?>

I hope so.

<The bible says that the word of God is written in our hearts. If that is true then we don't even really *need* the bible because God will reveal to us what we need to know when we need to know it by the Spirit.>

I disagree completely. The heart is deceitful above all things.

< The bible is a good thing though and it's good to read the bible, but I'm not so sure that it's good to intellectualize the bible anymore.>

When I read the Bible, I see the prophets and apostles and Jesus appealing to the word of God again and again and again, intellectualizing it.

< I think to really understand the bible we need to put the intellect away, be still and have a quiet mind so that the Spirit can reveal to us what we can't understand. >

Part of the greatest commandment is to love the Lord thy God with all thy mind. I think you need to reconsider what you just said.

<Just look at how biased conversations between Catholics and Protestants can be today. Imagine if it were up to us to decide which books belonged in the bible and which didn't. A Catholic would want to include books and passages that confirm his belief and likewise for a Protestant, let alone how kinds and emperors feel.>

You'd think God would have thought of that. I'm pretty sure that didn't catch him off guard.

<My point is that we aren't 100% sure that everything in the bible is correct, and if it's not then how should we know the truth? >

Regarding John 16:12-13 of course "you" in that context is the 11 apostles, but it's clear that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to be with the Church until the end of time (Matt 28:18-20). It's not like the Holy Spirit just hung around until the New Testament was written and then decided, "Well, okay, I've got you started, but from here on in you're on your own"?!

The apostles are the foundation of the Church which has been protected and guided by the Holy Spirit and will be until the Second Coming. See also John 14:25-26 and Luke 10:16

Regarding Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus confirms Peter as the leader of His CHURCH which clearly means the community of believers who will continue Christ's work after his death and resurrection. So in turn when Peter died, his leadership of Christ's Church was passed onto Linus. This is confirmed by all the early church records and historians. Then from Linus to Anacletus to Clement etc etc. Hence the Catholic Church maintains the deposit of faith passed on from the beginning. The idea that this apostolic faith should end with Peter's death and then after that it's a "free-for-all" is patently absurd!

By the middle ages, abuses within the clerical hierarchy necessitated reform, which was already underway by reformers within the Catholic Church, but discontent with certain practices which had nothing to do with the apostolic faith, allowed some dissenters to claim that they had the 'truth' and so everybody should follow them from now on. These people have been popping up ever since with each one claiming to have received some 'divine revelation' which enable him to correctly interpret some obscure passage from the Bible which nobody has ever before understood!

<playground player> Your own Dutch Reformed Church is a perfect example of what I just explained to <OCF>. These splinter churches go off on their own and end up in a mess because they have departed from the continuous unbroken chain of apostolic successors who preserved and passed on the true kerygma. They lose sight of the essential truth and get carried away with stuff like, "Oh, there's nothing in the Bible that says we should commemorate Easter or Christmas, so we'd better not do that or God will get angry!"

'Marianism' which is simply devotion to Mary, is part of the tradition handed down from the early Church and is evident in Luke's reflections on Jesus' mother in the opening chapters of his gospel and also John 19:25-27. Mary was also present with the apostles at the start of Acts.

As far as Peter being the supreme head of the Church, Paul was indeed aware of it as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles and his own letters. That didn't stop Paul from criticising Peter when he felt it necessary, but there is no question in Paul's mind that Peter was the head of the Church.

<There are hundreds and some say thousands of denominations. Do any of them really have it all figured out?> One, the Catholic Church.

<I think to really understand the bible we need to put the intellect away, be still and have a quiet mind so that the Spirit can reveal to us what we can't understand.>

Be still and have a quiet mind so that the Spirit can reveal to us what we can't understand, certainly! But don't put the intellect away or you'll start believing the universe is only 6,000 years old!

<I think it's best to encourage each other and look for areas of agreement, areas that are basic and fundamental to all Christians (there aren't many) and make a point to avoid controversy.> Yes, you're right about that.

I think your attitude towards the composition of the New Testament is too cynical, but in any event, it highlights the importance of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church from the beginning right up to today.

<Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.>

Exactly what I've been saying!

All these splinter groups departing from the true faith!

The church existed and was taught by people chosen by God and moved to speak the words they spoke. God saw fit at some point to record what those who lived after the time of being taught directly would need to know. The claim above is self serving tautology.

<The fact that the New Testament and canon of the Bible came out of the Church shows that apostolic tradition and holy scripture both proclaim the Word of God.>