You have 100 criminals on death row. They are all equally guilty and deserving of death. Every single one of them hates the governor of the state. So much so, that all of them conspired together and successfully killed his only son. One of these death row criminals is you. The governor has the freedom and right to pardon and give clemency to any of them. It could be one person, ten, all of them, or just none of them. If he chose to pardon none of them, would he be perfectly just to do so? Yes. And he is not obligated to choose between a dilemma of bestowing mercy either on all 100 of them, or none of them---he could choose any number in between, if he wills. He can do whatever he wishes because of his right as governor. But let us say he chooses to have mercy on 10 of the 100 justly deserved death row criminals. The ten are just as guilty and deserving of death as the other 90. And one of those ten to be graciously pardoned is you. You are free! You are pardoned! You have been granted mercy! Now as you are stepping out of that prison into freedom, are you going to look back and point your finger at the governor and utter, "How dare you pardon me, and not everyone else." You would be an ungrateful halfwit.
From scripture, I would have to say I agree. Of course being pardoned does include a change of mind and nature. Such a one pardoned would not say "How dare you pardon me, and not everyone else." God changes us from being ungrateful halfwits. I'd say that such a one who does not recognize the grace of God as being just and in God's control is either deluded or not pardoned.
A Classic Illustration of God's Sovereign Electing Freedom
Seems pretty obvious that the theology of "god's elect" evolved as a coping mechanism to the fact that not all evangelizing will be successful.
ReplyDeleteevolved?
ReplyDelete1. It's right in the Bible at the beginning of Christianity. It did not evolve.
2. I hope you are not reprobate and God will still yet call you Himself.
3. It explains how people are saved from their sins not why people are lost. We are all hell-bound by default.
Yes Marcus, your religion has evolved.
ReplyDeleteCan you show that Divine election was not part of what Jesus taught or what the first generation of Christians believed? If you say it evolved, when did it first come up?
ReplyDeleteI can show that we don't really know what Jesus taught and have only the scantest information about the 1st generation's varied beliefs...
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess that is a "no". Okay so let's take up the goal posts you had set up. I'd really like to see you try: show that we don't really know what Jesus taught and have only the scantest information about the 1st generation's varied beliefs. But here is the guidelines:
ReplyDeleteTo do that you have to be able to show that we don't know what the Gospels or the epistles originally said an/or that they would have need unknown to the the 1st Generation of Believers. Also you would have to show that the Gnostic texts are just as authoritative in determining what the the first generation believed. And you have to do all of this using only sources that there is a consensus among extant scholars that the original sources date before 125 AD.
And you have to do all of this using only sources that there is a consensus among extant scholars that the original sources date before 125 AD.
ReplyDelete125 CE is really all that needs to be said! Even if we assume 68-70 CE, that's 35 years after the event, which in the ancient world, was a life time.
As for showing that the Gnostic texts are just as authoritative in determining what the the first generation believed, I think it's pretty clear that they were authoritative in determining what the first generation of Christians who were Gnostics believed (see Acts 8:9-24).
ReplyDelete125 CE is really all that needs to be said! Even if we assume 68-70 CE, that's 35 years after the event, which in the ancient world, was a life time.
So you are alleging that none of the New Testament could have been written by people who actually knew Jesus even if they were written in the 60's AD? Good luck with that. Where is your proof?
As for showing that the Gnostic texts are just as authoritative in determining what the the first generation believed, I think it's pretty clear that they were authoritative in determining what the first generation of Christians who were Gnostics believed (see Acts 8:9-24).
You are going to have to do better than that. You are going to have to explain how Acts 8:9-24 bolsters the claim that the first generation of Christians were Gnostics.
So you are alleging that none of the New Testament could have been written by people who actually knew Jesus even if they were written in the 60's AD?
ReplyDeleteI don't need to allege it, given the dates, there's no way we can say with certainty that any of it was.
You are going to have to do better than that. You are going to have to explain how Acts 8:9-24 bolsters the claim that the first generation of Christians were Gnostics.
Honestly, and no offense, but do you have a learning disability? I guess you could just be ignorant, or perhaps you're trying to dishonestly twist my comments? The first generation of christians weren't gnostics, they were a mixed bag of sects, some of them gnostic. Some were ebionites, some were nazarrenes, some were jewish christians, some were pauline christians and some where gnostic christians.
Honestly, and no offense, but do you have a learning disability?
ReplyDeleteProbably a bit harsh given this ham-handed sentence....
As for showing that the Gnostic texts are just as authoritative in determining what the the first generation believed, I think it's pretty clear that they were authoritative in determining what the first generation of Christians who were Gnostics believed (see Acts 8:9-24).
What I was trying to say was the gnostic gospels were authoritative for the segment of the first generation of christians who were gnostics.
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteI don't need to allege it, given the dates, there's no way we can say with certainty that any of it was.
No, I mean I want you to explain how you arrive at that conclusion. What are you your sources. Without that its only an allegation.
Probably a bit harsh given this ham-handed sentence....
Thanks for admitting your own limits
What I was trying to say was the gnostic gospels were authoritative for the segment of the first generation of christians who were gnostics.
You can say anything you like but that does not prove that among the first century Christians that there were Gnostic,Ebionites, or Nazarrenes. You also seem to think that there was a difference between being a Jewish Christian and a "pauline" Christian. Where is your proof of that. How do you prove that Paul taught anything different than Peter, James, John, Phillip, Matthias, or any of the first Christians who were there at Pentecost? You still have not explained how Acts 8:9-24 bolsters your claims.
You can say anything you like but that does not prove that among the first century Christians that there were Gnostic,Ebionites, or Nazarrenes.
ReplyDelete????????????????????????????
This is all very firmly established. Read something, anything, beside the bible and friendly blogs.
You still have not explained how Acts 8:9-24 bolsters your claims.
ReplyDeleteSimon Magnus. Look it up.
I have seen several examples and evidence. I can name scholars who agree with me. I'm asking where did you get that conclusion from. What scholar support your viewpoint? There are no examples of gnosticism in its classical form anywhere earlier than the 2nd century. Prove what you say.
ReplyDeleteGnosticism didn’t suddenly appear out of thin air in its classical form, you must realize?
ReplyDeleteAs for where these conclusion came from, we can just stick with the bible, although in addition to that, I believe this is the majority position amongst scholars, at least it was when I was in college. Paul used some gnostic terms (see gal 3:15-24, 1st cor 4:1, 2nd cor 12:2, rmns 8:18-21) and aimed some of “his” epistles (Titus and Timothy) against gnostic doctrine, Acts 8 deals with an early gnostic figure and a good portion of John was also written to confront gnostic doctrine (see 1:14 for starters…).
Now of course this can go either way and show and early date for Gnosticism or a later date for John and the Epistles. You pick!
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteGnosticism didn’t suddenly appear out of thin air in its classical form, you must realize?
When did I say it did?
As for where these conclusion came from, we can just stick with the bible, although in addition to that, I believe this is the majority position amongst scholars, at least it was when I was in college. Paul used some gnostic terms (see gal 3:15-24, 1st cor 4:1, 2nd cor 12:2, rmns 8:18-21) and aimed some of “his” epistles (Titus and Timothy) against gnostic doctrine, Acts 8 deals with an early gnostic figure and a good portion of John was also written to confront gnostic doctrine (see 1:14 for starters…).
I disagree that Paul or John used Gnostic terms. It's more correct to say that Gnosticism later used their their words and twisted their doctrine. You cannot get the argument to fly that Paul or John were "proto" Gnostics. I'd also be careful in stating that these texts were against Gnosticism because texts like John 1:14 do have apologetic value, they weren't written to make an argument but confer information.
I don't think they add any value to your argument. Got anything else?
When did I say it did?
ReplyDeleteYou implied it with these two statements. Here… “You can say anything you like but that does not prove that among the first century Christians that there were Gnostic…”
And here… “There are no examples of gnosticism in its classical form anywhere earlier than the 2nd century…”
I disagree that Paul or John used Gnostic terms
OK. You and 2 or 3 scholars.
You cannot get the argument to fly that Paul or John were "proto" Gnostics.
Good, because that was not my argument. Why would “proto” gnostics argue against Gnosticism? My point is that an early form of gnosticism did exist when the gospel of John and Paul’s epistles were written. Those texts prove that with as much certainty as we can have for something in the ancient world.
I have no dog in this hunt and don’t really care when gnostics existed, so I guess what I really want to know is why does the existence of multiple christianities early in the history bother you?
You implied it with these two statements. Here… “You can say anything you like but that does not prove that among the first century Christians that there were Gnostic…”
ReplyDeleteAnd here… “There are no examples of gnosticism in its classical form anywhere earlier than the 2nd century…”
I was careful in what I said. I'm saying that in the first century none of the churches founded by Peter, Paul, Phillip, or anyone who personally knew Jesus would have agreed with whom ever wrote the Gnostic texts we have today.
OK. You and 2 or 3 scholars
It's more than 2 or 3 scholars and you do a disservice saying that. On top of that I doubt you would find a single example of anyone agreeing with you before the 19th century.
I have no dog in this hunt and don’t really care when gnostics existed, so I guess what I really want to know is why does the existence of multiple christianities early in the history bother you?
You claim that the other "Christianities" not represented in the New Testament are just as viable as what the 27 books hold although they clearly contradict them. You haven't shown that. What it does show is that there have always been heretics and false teachers. If anything their existence shores up my argument and brings the truth to light. I don't really see how you can claim an evolution of what i believe. I can find everything I believe in the 27 books and they are all early.
I was careful in what I said. I'm saying that in the first century none of the churches founded by Peter, Paul, Phillip, or anyone who personally knew Jesus would have agreed with whom ever wrote the Gnostic texts we have today.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet that's not what you said at all. Forgive me for laughing at your comment that you were careful about what you wrote.
And yet that's not what you said at all. Forgive me for laughing at your comment that you were careful about what you wrote.
ReplyDeleteWrong that is what I said.
I made a difference between classical and "proto" forms of Gnosticism. I thought you were following along.
I had written:
There are no examples of gnosticism in its classical form anywhere earlier than the 2nd century.
Laugh all you want. Lots of what you say is more than amusing.
For example: you wrote
Simon Magnus. Look it up.
Magnus was not a born-again Christian like Peter or John or Paul or Phillip. He was not a Christian so it does not bolster your point. Cute. Not convincing at all however.
You said… “You can say anything you like but that does not prove that among the first century Christians that there were Gnostic…”
ReplyDeleteSimon Magnus was a gnostic, being "born-again" or not is irrelevant and impossible to prove with the historical record and thus meaningless. Bottom line, Simon Magnus is mentioned in Acts, so we can conclude there were gnostics when Acts was written. Since there were gnostics when Acts was written, we can conclude there were multiple christianities when Acts was written. This really isn't that hard.
Let’s get back to this, why are you bothered by the idea that there were multiple christianities in the early history of your religion?
ReplyDeleteSimon Magnus was a gnostic, being "born-again" or not is irrelevant and impossible to prove with the historical record and thus meaningless. Bottom line, Simon Magnus is mentioned in Acts, so we can conclude there were gnostics when Acts was written. Since there were gnostics when Acts was written, we can conclude there were multiple christianities when Acts was written. This really isn't that hard
Excuse me but Simon's spiritual state is very much relevant. There is nothing in the text that can lead to conclusion that he was a gnostic. According to the text, Acts 8:20-23, Simon did not have the holy Spirit in him and his heart was not right before God ergo Simon the sorcerer was not a born-again Christian. He was a false prophet. A heretic. He was no more a Christian than you are. He had head knowledge but his heart was false. (If you are going to go by the text).
Let’s get back to this, why are you bothered by the idea that there were multiple christianities in the early history of your religion?
I answered this. I don't have a problem. Let me see if you read it this time:
You claim that the other "Christianities" not represented in the New Testament are just as viable as what the 27 books hold although they clearly contradict them. You haven't shown that. What it does show is that there have always been heretics and false teachers. If anything their existence shores up my argument and brings the truth to light. I don't really see how you can claim an evolution of what I believe. I can find everything I believe in the 27 books and they are all early.
Excuse me but Simon's spiritual state is very much relevant...
ReplyDeleteMaybe, probably not, but I'll say ok for arguments sake. But the point is one cannot determine someones "spiritual state" from a second hand account.
There is nothing in the text that can lead to conclusion that he was a gnostic.
Obviously, but we have other, non-biblical sources for Simon Magnus.
I answered this. I don't have a problem. Let me see if you read it this time
I read it, but it was such a non-answer that it never acured to me that you considered it an answer to my question. OK, fair enough...
To be clear, Acts simply shows that Simon Magnus was contemporary with Peter et al. We know Simon was a gnostic from other sources.
ReplyDeleteTogether, we know (as much as we can "know" anything about the ancient world) that gnostics were part of (part of, Marcus, part of) the first generation of christians.
Maybe, probably not, but I'll say ok for arguments sake. But the point is one cannot determine someones "spiritual state" from a second hand account.
ReplyDeleteSo it is not possible to determine if Simon was born-again but it is okay to determine that Simon was a Gnostic from second-hand sources. Right.
Just for laughs, what sources are you using to determine Simon the sorcerer was a Gnostic?
So it is not possible to determine if Simon was born-again but it is okay to determine that Simon was a Gnostic from second-hand sources. Right.
ReplyDeleteReally? Think about what you wrote.
what sources are you using to determine Simon the sorcerer was a Gnostic?
I guess you've not read the Church Fathers.
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteReally? Think about what you wrote.
Denial does not look good on you. Maybe you did not understand what I wrote. The Church Fathers are second-hand sources. They weren't there. I don't consider them completely authoritative. You don't either unless its convenient for you. They did get somethings wrong - as we all do. The Bible is different. The Bible is inerrant and the Word of God. The Church Fathers were fallible.
So you think the Bible is full of second-hand sources that you can't trust. How much can you trust the Church Fathers? They said we all need to be born-again and God exists. If you think they are right about Simon the Sorcerer being a Gnostic, why do you think so much of what else they said was wrong? Oh,yeah! That's right! That would make the Bible true. You can't have that! You, Ryan, sure have flawed logic on your side. I sure wish your understanding would evolve.
Wow... it must be truly strange to see the world through your eyes. Can you even see colors?
ReplyDeleteOK, so this is so incredibly basic, you realize "The bible is true/false" is a worthless statement, right? There are many statements in the various books of the bible that are true, and many that are false. Probably just like the writings of the early Church Fathers. There are degrees, as with everything, of what we can trust and what we should be skeptical about. So when the the gospel of matthew says Jesus was born of a virgin, we can be pretty sure that statement is false, but when it says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary, that's probably closer to the truth, after all it's believable, but could be just as false. When Irenaeus (and others) tells us the story of Simon the Magician and Helen of Troy we can safely discount that, but we can probably trust him and the others when they tell us what sect he belonged to and what doctrines he held, especially since they tend to agree with gnostic sources.
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteWow... it must be truly strange to see the world through your eyes. Can you even see colors?
Funny coming from someone who is not only spiritually blind but claims to have been able to see for 25 years and then went blind.
OK, so this is so incredibly basic, you realize "The bible is true/false" is a worthless statement, right?
Wrong.
There are many statements in the various books of the bible that are true, and many that are false.
Name one false statement and prove that it's false. If you can't you are just making a stupid assertion (as always). And that is not what you have said in the past. Harsh I know, but you claim to know better.
Probably just like the writings of the early Church Fathers.
The Bible is not like the writings of the early Church Fathers but the writings of the early Church Fathers are like what you or I might write: full of things that are true and things that are not true.
There are degrees, as with everything, of what we can trust and what we should be skeptical about.
That is where being consistent and testing everything is important.
So when the the gospel of matthew says Jesus was born of a virgin, we can be pretty sure that statement is false, but when it says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary, that's probably closer to the truth, after all it's believable, but could be just as false.
You have no warrant for rejecting the virgin Birth. Just because you haven't observed such a thing and can't replicate it, does not mean it didn't happen. That is part of the definition of miracle. You have no will logic other than your own predilections to reject miracle. Skepticism is fine (your loss), but outright treating the data as outliars is going too far.
When Irenaeus (and others) tells us the story of Simon the Magician and Helen of Troy we can safely discount that, but we can probably trust him and the others when they tell us what sect he belonged to and what doctrines he held, especially since they tend to agree with gnostic sources.
So that is how you decide what second-hand sources you will accept and what you will reject: By what you feel comfortable with. How...scientific. (I'm laughing at you. I'm explicitly telling you in case the sarcasm is over your head.)
You have no warrant for rejecting the virgin Birth. Just because you haven't observed such a thing and can't replicate it, does not mean it didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteSays the guy who thinks Noah lived on Pangea 175 million years ago. That one never gets old...
So that is how you decide what second-hand sources you will accept and what you will reject: By what you feel comfortable with. How...scientific.
ReplyDeleteYou have epistemological problems that you could probably live your life happily without addressing, but if intellectual honesty is important to you, you should probably look into it.
Says the guy who thinks Noah lived on Pangea 175 million years ago. That one never gets old...
ReplyDeleteStill waiting on you to prove he didn't. Until then you are a joke that will keep me laughing.
You have epistemological problems that you could probably live your life happily without addressing, but if intellectual honesty is important to you, you should probably look into it.
Intellectual dishonesty is your problem not mine. Cherry Picking truth - pretending you know what is true and what isn't - seems to be your forte'. I will admit that you are better at it than I.
Idiot.
ReplyDeleteGood thing God loves us inspite of us. There is hope for you.
ReplyDelete