Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VI!

[220chrisTian]

1. My mom and I went to a Western art museum yesterday: http://www.boothmuseum.org/ It was free to us [normally $11-$15] because of Museum Day 2009. [I'm so sorry for not telling anyone about this, if they didn't already know. ]
2. During the drive there, about 2 hours, it rained really heavy! I’m talking a monsoon! The speed limit on the interstate is 70mph. But sometimes we were going 50-60mph because of the heavy rain. But at least there wasn't any traffic! God took care of us and we arrived safely!
3. On the way back [headed north], traffic on the interstate headed south wasn’t moving. We missed some bad traffic! [This has happened to us frequently.] We think the interstate further south was covered in water.

Thank You, Jesus, for watching over us--all the time! Your mercies are new every morning! [Lam 3:22-23] Thank You for the blood!

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

(DRUM ROLL! and credits roll too, scrolling upward in friendly, bold yellow all-capital letters)

“DUM, dum! Dum-dum-dum-DUM, dum! Dum-dum-dum-DUM, dum! Dum-dum-dum-dummm ...”

CHRISTIANITY, RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

EPISODE VI: RETURN OF THE REDEYE


In the year 2006 a small series was incidentally born on Old NarniaWeb,
Originally called “Teens on Christianity,” the subject quickly broadened.
Eventually it was renamed “On Christianity,” covering many related topics.
Later the title became the famous “Christianity, Religion and Philosophy.”
People came and went, raising issues and debating, with few flare-ups,
And oftentimes the same topics recurred (resulting in e-cycled material!).
Last year we reopened discussion here; last week it reached 101 pages.
Its name was “Episode V: The Empire’s Hype is Back,” and it lasted long.
People discussed many issues, yet also learned more about others’ beliefs.
(Some of them wrote reams and reams on subjects, resulting in redeye,)
And yet, one might hope, also better understanding of Biblical views.)
Now the series is born again. Let the Deep Doctrinal Magic begin!

Topics in the final pages of Episode V included:

- Depressions, diseases and disorders: are their causes spiritual, emotional, physical, or combinations? If so, how should Christians react to them and suggest they should best be treated? Do some Christians overcorrect into “spiritual problems,” and others into therapy?

- Is there a Biblical distinction between “body, soul, and spirit”? Or does Scripture imply that humans are body and soul/spirit?

- Moral relativism and the source of humankinds’ (or humans’) moral beliefs: always interesting.

I’d like to add another suggested topic:

- For the Christians — is God “selfish”? That is, if His people are meant to honor Him, love Him and do everything for Him, does He return the favor, as if He’s prizing our lives above His own? I’ve heard some sermons and songs imply He does. Is this a right view? If it’s not, how have the wrong views still infiltrated the way we think about God, the Gospel, and His love and truth?

One very big topic is not included in the above list: the previous discussion about eugenics. That kind of topic will not be allowed.

In the past NarniaWeb has had similar policies about the promotion of human slavery. The same is true for this viewpoint. NarniaWeb members have many different views and that is fine. We love discussion about them. But the moderator staff will not allow abject evil to be promoted.

This is not just something controversial or interesting to think or talk about, or write about online or on paper. Eugenics, the idea of strengthening the human race by killing certain people or preventing others from reproducing, is abject evil.

So are related implications, such as disallowing mentally disabled people to live.

In the past, NarniaWeb has forbidden other debates, such as the debates over abortion and homosexuality. We have also put a halt to discussions in which some advocated supporting human slavery. Eugenics falls under that same category.

Lest anyone complain, we are only practicing the same morality that even non-Christians say they want: the best for the most amount of people. Eugenics talk hurts NarniaWeb’s society, is an unfit notion, and thus should be ended.

Any questions can be directed to myself or any of the other Spare Oom moderators.

“Now — where to begin? …”

[PrincessRosario]

So, what do you guys think about Calvinism?



Okay, okay, I'm kidding. I couldn't resist.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

I think it's cool. And very close to Biblical truth. It keeps God's glory and sovereignty in focus. It has the entirety of Scripture, not just select verses, in mind. And, like any doctrines, it has risks if you try to put together a System apart from Scripture, and apply it directly to the head and not to the heart. True Reformed theology acts, not just thinks, according to Grace.

Also, we don't need to witness to people, because God has it under control.

Now I'm the one kidding.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

And I think it a bunch of poo-haa-ni-blech-puzzit-mel-grot-fid-dimmie-goh!!!!! I have no idea that what was , but it sure was fun!!! *Places an Arminian badge on his shirt and does a funny little dance*

[PrincessRosario]

*watches with amusement*

Can I be a Calvinist and a free-willie at the same time?

[Mother-Music]

And I think it a bunch of poo-haa-ni-blech-puzzit-mel-grot-fid-dimmie-goh!!!!! I have no idea that what was , but it sure was fun!!! *Places an Arminian badge on his shirt and does a funny little dance*

*head explodes*

"Ahh...that felt good!"

~*~*~*~*

"Well, I'm back."

I quote good ol' Sam in Return of the King because I have been gone from this thread quite some time. I think I did post a couple times during the last three years, but I have no clear memory of it. I was going to school, working, home schooling and mothering all at the same time. Now, one thing is off that list: SCHOOL.

Yours truly is not-quite-officially the possessor of a BA with a vocal concentration. I finished the last French class before June 26. I will walk across the stage in December.

So. *rubs hands together*. Yum! These subjects look tasty! Alright then...I'll be back shortly with some comments.

Meanwhile...y'all play nice.

mm

[Glenstorm the Great]

I'm a Calvinist. I'm not sure if I would stick my hand in a fire for that belief but I'm pretty sure it's the correct view. However I'm not one of the legalistic freaks that thinks if you're not a Calvinist, you're not really saved. It's just one of the doctrines I'm pretty sure is true.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

Well, Princess, now that your little joke has actually turned out real, how about some of us who claim "Calvinism " -- which is really a nickname for Reformed theology -- define what it is?

I'll start: Reformed understanding, as drawn from Scripture, believes this:

The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.

That famous line is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, a very orthodox confession of faith for any true Christian.

Thus, for informed Reformed Christians, God's centrality in His-story, and His sovereignty, are the focus. We are a means to Him, and Scripture's teaching about the Gospel points that way: not as vessels to be filled by Him, but mirrors to reflect His image, His love, His truth, and most of all His glory.

What about others? And those of you who are, ahem, farrr too eager to declare yourself "Arminian," what does that or "Calvinism" mean to you?


P.S.: I believe in human free will. Most informed Reformed do. I've read that this is called compatibilism. Of course some, claiming to be "Calvinist," are indeed the ones who've taken bits of Biblical truth and run away from the rest of the Bible to start a System that only claims to know God's sovereignty but does not take into account very real and consequential human choices. Scripture does not support such views. Neither do informed Reformed.

"Calvinists" based in Scripture know humans make real choices. They just also know that God is the One truly running the show. They also know that humans' free will can never be perfectly "free" the way God's is.

For one thing, God is all-loving, perfectly holy, omniscient and omnipotent.

And unsaved humans' will is enslaved to sin. Scripture is clear, in Romans and Ephesians (just for starters), that unsaved humans cannot break free of that condition unless it God regenerates their hearts, raising them to spiritual life.

Off to supper now!

[Mother-Music]

P.S.: I believe in human free will. Most informed Reformed do. I've read that this is called compatibilism. Of course some, claiming to be "Calvinist," are indeed the ones who've taken bits of Biblical truth and run away from the rest of the Bible to start a System that only claims to know God's sovereignty but does not take into account very real and consequential human choices. Scripture does not support such views. Neither do informed Reformed.

"Calvinists" based in Scripture know humans make real choices. They just also know that God is the One truly running the show. They also know that humans' free will can never be perfectly "free" the way God's is.

For one thing, God is all-loving, perfectly holy, omniscient and omnipotent.

And unsaved humans' will is enslaved to sin. Scripture is clear, in Romans and Ephesians (just for starters), that unsaved humans cannot break free of that condition unless it God regenerates their hearts, raising them to spiritual life.

So, what you're saying is that Human "free" will is hardly free. Non-believers are not free to make every choice, because even if they make the choice to be righteous, it is probably for unrighteous reasons...indeed, it cannot be else.

And believers are not free to make every choice, because they are constrained by their love for God.

The fallacy is that "free" will exists at all, or that there is a "neutral" or objective position from which to make choices.

mm

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

Yes, and passages such as Romans 8: 7-8 would seem to support that:

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Other verses nevertheless call people to repentance and faith. And this only serves to illustrate the futility of our position! -- unless God acts, using the active Gospel call, almost always preached by believers, and converts us.

[Andrew]

Eugenics talk hurts NarniaWeb’s society, is an unfit notion, and thus should be ended.

That was a very ironic statement, made me laugh a bit haha

But the moderator staff will not allow abject evil to be promoted.

What is this "abject evil" of which you speak?


Anyways, about Calvinism, I just recently finished a book called "The Five Points of Calvinism," interesting stuff I suppose, supports my personal view of Christianity well.

Not that this is indicitave of all Calvinists, but it just seems in my experience that most of them are stuck up, holier-than-thou folk, but of course it depends on the person.

[The Black Glove]

Andrew,

Your trouble is that you cannot see your purpose in life. If you have purpose, you have morality. If not, then you don't.

I look next to me and see a bookshelf and am right to say that it is a good shelf. It does what I need it to: it holds books well, doesn't look terrible, and generally pleases me. Thus I can say that it is good: it fulfills its purpose.

Not that this is indicitave of all Calvinists, but it just seems in my experience that most of them are stuck up, holier-than-thou folk

How many have you met? I find, in general, that they are humble folks who take Scripture seriously.

TBG

[Mother-Music]

For the Christians — is God “selfish”? That is, if His people are meant to honor Him, love Him and do everything for Him, does He return the favor, as if He’s prizing our lives above His own? I’ve heard some sermons and songs imply He does. Is this a right view? If it’s not, how have the wrong views still infiltrated the way we think about God, the Gospel, and His love and truth?

Dr R...this question is just a tad confusing. I think it may be because you asked the question from one side of the argument, and then gave an explanation from the other side.

Do you mean: "Is God 'selfish'? Is it wrong for Him to demand and accept all His people's honor, love and service?"

If that is not a better phrasing of the question, perhaps you could try to reiterate it so that answering the question would be easier. I think I understand what you are asking in both the original question and in the example, and I can answer them separately. But I can't answer them coherently. To me, they are two different questions, though they may be two sides of a coin, I'm not sure.

mm

[Andrew]

I look next to me and see a bookshelf and am right to say that it is a good shelf. It does what I need it to: it holds books well, doesn't look terrible, and generally pleases me. Thus I can say that it is good: it fulfills its purpose.

For one, book shelves no longer have life - that ended when the tree it was made from was cut down. Although the only other "purposes" we can have is to continue our races, or serve a god. If our purpose is to breed and die, well if that's enough purpose for you then more power to ya, but it isn't for me - if that is all we will have then who cares if the race keeps going anyways? If our purpose is to serve god, then he is selfish and unworthy of our praise.

Edit: I've met quite a few, the church I used to go to was full of them, part of the reason I left was because I was tired of being told how certain people were going to heaven and others were not, and why. The church I'm going to now has a mixed belief between Calvinism and Arminiasm (sp?), something like God chose to reveal himself to man, but man still chooses.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

Andrew, it's neither "Calvinistic" or "Arminian" to say some people are going to Heaven and some are not. That's just what Christians believe.

Doesn't it seem a little presumptuous to declare, based on only your experiences (one person) and a single church (one venue), that all "Calvinists" (or anyone else, really) are this-and-such and have some uniform behavior?

By the by, anyone being mean shouldn't surprise or annoy you, anyway, if it is true that morality is relative and based only on opinion.


Meanwhile, Mother-Music: guilty of not being clear on my part! I'll try to rewrite the question soon. Perhaps most of my effort in this discussion's first post was made in laying out the banned-topic rules.