Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 26, 2021, 12:07 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
#11
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
(June 2, 2021 at 12:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(June 2, 2021 at 10:36 am)Angrboda Wrote: It's a pretty shitty belief system if they can't agree about something so basic.  It makes it clear that none of it has an objective basis.

Are you able to give me an example of something you consider objective that survives Aggrippas trilema which you frequently raise?

It's Agrippa's trilemma. And the point isn't a pass / fail test but rather the degree to which something fails. A basic belief in an external world is more believable as a basic belief than any speculations about God's grace. So God's grace is a less credible candidate for truth than the existence of the external world. As Hume said, a wise man apportions his belief according to the evidence. The lack of credibility surrounding a specific view of God's grace means that it supports belief in it less well, which is to say it is not as well evidenced. Believing in things that are not well evidenced is irrational. As to the trilemma, I'm not a foundationalist so I don't find the trilemma particularly informative. It's a tool of pedagogy. If I can establish rationality independent of the trilemma, the trilemma is irrelevant. As a personal matter, I consider the trilemma more of a paradox, and bring it out for people who have made positive claims. Skepticism is not a positive claim, so the trilemma is not relevant.
[Image: Fenrir-sign.jpg]
Reply
#12
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
(June 2, 2021 at 3:34 pm)Angrboda Wrote:
(June 2, 2021 at 12:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Are you able to give me an example of something you consider objective that survives Aggrippas trilema which you frequently raise?

It's Agrippa's trilemma.  And the point isn't a pass / fail test but rather the degree to which something fails.  A basic belief in an external world is more believable as a basic belief than any speculations about God's grace.  So God's grace is a less credible candidate for truth than the existence of the external world.  As Hume said, a wise man apportions his belief according to the evidence.  The lack of credibility surrounding a specific view of God's grace means that it supports belief in it less well, which is to say it is not as well evidenced.  Believing in things that are not well evidenced is irrational.  As to the trilemma, I'm not a foundationalist so I don't find the trilemma particularly informative.  It's a tool of pedagogy.  If I can establish rationality independent of the trilemma, the trilemma is irrelevant.  As a personal matter, I consider the trilemma more of a paradox, and bring it out for people who have made positive claims.  Skepticism is not a positive claim, so the trilemma is not relevant.

Fair enough and a well-presented position. At the same time, and this is not a personal criticism; but rather an observation of a tendency of yours to adopt a skeptical stance against any form of realism. Yet, credibility is almost by definition a subjective standard and appealing to evidence hardly applies to the "animal faith" we have in external reality and the inner-sense some have of the divine presence. My wonder is to what someone, such as yourself, who seems to deny any form of realism, appeals in order to make claims of objectivity.
"Anyone who believes the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor." - Alan Sokal
Reply
#13
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism


Reply
#14
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
(June 2, 2021 at 5:32 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(June 2, 2021 at 3:34 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It's Agrippa's trilemma.  And the point isn't a pass / fail test but rather the degree to which something fails.  A basic belief in an external world is more believable as a basic belief than any speculations about God's grace.  So God's grace is a less credible candidate for truth than the existence of the external world.  As Hume said, a wise man apportions his belief according to the evidence.  The lack of credibility surrounding a specific view of God's grace means that it supports belief in it less well, which is to say it is not as well evidenced.  Believing in things that are not well evidenced is irrational.  As to the trilemma, I'm not a foundationalist so I don't find the trilemma particularly informative.  It's a tool of pedagogy.  If I can establish rationality independent of the trilemma, the trilemma is irrelevant.  As a personal matter, I consider the trilemma more of a paradox, and bring it out for people who have made positive claims.  Skepticism is not a positive claim, so the trilemma is not relevant.

Fair enough and a well-presented position. At the same time, and this is not a personal criticism; but rather an observation of a tendency of yours to adopt a skeptical stance against any form of realism. Yet, credibility is almost by definition a subjective standard and appealing to evidence hardly applies to the "animal faith" we have in external reality and the inner-sense some have of the divine presence. My wonder is to what someone, such as yourself, who seems to deny any form of realism, appeals in order to make claims of objectivity.

I'm not against realism. As Wittgenstein has said, many problems that seem to be problems of philosophy are rather problems of language. For whatever reason, the rather limited distance the apple has rolled from the tree of naive concepts and frameworks in philosphy isn't enough to carve nature at her joints. I'm dissatisfied with any frameworks that glosses over this problem. I don't have the answer, but not continuing the mistakes of the past seems a good place to start. Objective? Relative? This all just seems like blind men describing their different experiences of an elephant. The problem of universals is similar. I don't think it will ever be resolved by building on top of old conceptions of substance and in unreflective mereological assumptions.
[Image: Fenrir-sign.jpg]
Reply
#15
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
(June 2, 2021 at 5:48 pm)Angrboda Wrote:
(June 2, 2021 at 5:32 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Fair enough and a well-presented position. At the same time, and this is not a personal criticism; but rather an observation of a tendency of yours to adopt a skeptical stance against any form of realism. Yet, credibility is almost by definition a subjective standard and appealing to evidence hardly applies to the "animal faith" we have in external reality and the inner-sense some have of the divine presence. My wonder is to what someone, such as yourself, who seems to deny any form of realism, appeals in order to make claims of objectivity.

I'm not against realism.  As Wittgenstein has said, many problems that seem to be problems of philosophy are rather problems of language.  For whatever reason, the rather limited distance the apple has rolled from the tree of naive concepts and frameworks in philosphy isn't enough to carve nature at her joints.  I'm dissatisfied with any frameworks that glosses over this problem.  I don't have the answer, but not continuing the mistakes of the past seems a good place to start.  Objective?  Relative?  This all just seems like blind men describing their different experiences of an elephant.  The problem of universals is similar.  I don't think it will ever be resolved by building on top of old conceptions of substance and in unreflective mereological assumptions.
"Animal faith" and " inner-sense some have of the divine presence" 

mystic babble
“The sun from far gives life. But get close to it and it burns anything down to ashes”
Reply
#16
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
(June 2, 2021 at 2:22 pm)Drich Wrote:
(June 2, 2021 at 8:43 am)johndoe122931 Wrote: Hello All,

I noticed an older thread labeled Calvinism and there were some comments made that were not entirely accurate as to what Calvinism is and what the individuals who adhere to this system actually believe. At the bottom of the thread, it stated that it has been more than 30 days since the last post and that I should just start a new one. Not sure if that is common practice here so please let me know if I should have started a new post like this or just posted on the old thread. 

In this post, I will give you all the very basics of Calvinism. This is not an exhaustive commentary whatsoever but, are five primary points that you can understand as well as anybody who has followed this system of belief.

There is an acronym that Calvinist use to get across their basic foundational belief system. That Acronym is T.U.L.I.P.
The TULIP of Calvinism is the acronym that represents the five primary points that represent Calvinism: 

T- Total depravity
U- Unconditional election 
L- Limited atonement
I- Irresistible grace 
P- Perseverance of the Saints 
Hence they are called the five points of Calvinism. The five points emerged from the Synod of Dort (1618-19)

The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God's word. It focuses on God's sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of His omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings:

That God by His sovereign grace and predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation. 

I can post the scripture with each point as to where they get this belief from if anybody is interested. Thank you all for your time!

is there one place in the bible where calvinism is completely and contextually spelled out? IE where in the bible can i contextually find the 5 pillars?

There are many places in the Holy Bible that evidence the points, cover to cover, but here are some declaratory examples:

T- Total depravity – “But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.” - Isaiah 64:6 (Also Matthew 19:24-26, Ephesians 2:1)

U- Unconditional election – “And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” - Romans 9:10-16 (also Romans 11:5)

L- Limited atonement – “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” - John 6:37 (Also Psalm 2:8, Ephesians 1:8-10
 
I- Irresistible grace – “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” - John 6:44 (also John 10:27, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Corinthians 9:8, Galatians 1:15
 
P- Perseverance of the Saints – “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” - John 16:33, “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” - 2 Timothy 3:12 (also Also 2 Timothy 4:8, Hebrews 12:1)
Reply
#17
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism


[Image: Fenrir-sign.jpg]
Reply
#18
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
(June 6, 2021 at 3:37 pm)Angrboda Wrote:


"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14 

Humbly ask GOD for wisdom, He does not fault us for doing so. Summarily dismissing His word doesn't benefit.
Reply
#19
RE: VERY Basic Doctrines of Calvinism
(June 7, 2021 at 2:45 pm)Mercyvessel Wrote: Humbly ask GOD for wisdom, He does not fault us for doing so. Summarily dismissing His word doesn't benefit.

Prove it. Put up or shutup.
[Image: Fenrir-sign.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Spiritual realm is very likely real (demonic possession)? Flavius007 23 563 May 13, 2021 at 8:58 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Does Calvinism make the most sense as far as Christianity Goes? The Batlord 63 14486 August 16, 2015 at 10:14 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
Video Very interesting Steve Shives episode robvalue 2 1147 July 19, 2015 at 10:28 am
Last Post: robvalue
  How to prove Christianity is right without trying very hard Dystopia 6 3264 July 15, 2015 at 5:01 am
Last Post: Excited Penguin
  How to Prove Your Own Position without Trying Very Hard Randy Carson 59 9915 July 14, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: Ravenshire
  Basic Xtianity! Minimalist 2 639 May 24, 2015 at 3:10 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Fish must be very holy Boris Karloff 99 18456 March 25, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Last Post: Smaug
  Prophesies - Very Interesting Revelation777 56 8542 July 31, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Last Post: LostLocke
  Basic Christian Beliefs Loading Please Wait 13 4606 March 7, 2012 at 12:13 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  Happy Thanksgiving and a very Merry Christmas in 2011 reverendjeremiah 4 2670 November 23, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Last Post: Violet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)