I do think John deviates a bit from the other three to a suspicious extent, but what specifically are you talking about? I poked around in there but I didn't see anything that was particularly clear on salvation through grace.
It's pretty clear that we're saved by the father drawing us (see e.g. John 6:46 and surrounding), and it's by belief (same area, also John 3:16).
Sure, but there's a big difference between "I forgive this particular act" and "mere belief in me automatically erases all acts"
See the above reference in John. But no, it wasn't individual acts, but statements in general. See, e.g. Matthew 9:2.
Sure, maybe he's being metaphorical with some of this, but "he actually meant this unrelated and almost directly contradictory thing" should at least raise some eyebrows.
What unrelated and almost directly contradictory things are you thinking of?
probably doesn't mean "don't worry about it, your sins don't matter as long as you believe"
Correct, it doesn't. Sin's an awfully serious thing. Antinomianism is far too prevalent in modern lay Protestantism. We should certainly not be sinning more that grace may abound.
Edit: Should be John 6:44.
Felagund
6mo ago
But you said you were an atheist?
Where do you think Paul got his teachings?
Felagund
6mo ago
And it is believed Pauline by basically all scholars. You think he was just being a devious liar in that?
Anyway, Acts also confirms contact with the disciples of Jesus.
Felagund
6mo ago
Things have clearly not gone as well for archaeologists hoping to prove the Exodus
Common misconception!
Felagund
6mo ago
Sure, it's trendy to go after Paul, and is frequently done by those who dislike Christianity, especially if they like the common idea of Jesus (which often does not correspond to Jesus as he actually was—he did not come to bring peace, but a sword). But yeah, secular academics, exchristians, and lefty christians all clearly have the direction of motivated reasoning going in that direction. This is especially the case for those who are precommitted to the position that Christianity couldn't possibly be, you know, true.
Anyway, Peter also sees a vision allowing the eating of unclean foods. And Paul confirms his beliefs with the apostles who were Jesus' direct followers—Galatians 2.
Felagund
6mo ago
But where do you think Saul got that Christianity from?
There were the apostles, who knew Jesus himself, and Saul confirmed with them that what he was saying was accurate. (See Galatians 2.)
Felagund
6mo ago
Perhaps you're excepting John, but it's pretty clear in John.
Jesus also forgives sins in the gospels.
I don't think Jesus actually intended every person to do every thing he spoke of. For example, he probably didn't intend for everyone to be gauging out their eyes.
Felagund
6mo ago
The others on the road heard the voice of Saul.
This also does a pretty awful job trying to account for the enormous effort he put into spreading Christianity throughout the world. Not to mention undergoing imprisonments and a host of other ills, culminating, if the tradition is to be believed, in his martyrdom. I can't take this very seriously.
Felagund
6mo ago
I don't think decades works. Paul's one of the major authors, and he was a Christian within a few years of Jesus' death. How do you think Paul would have come to believe Jesus was God?
Felagund
6mo ago
But we know that James and Paul were, at least after some time, not leaders of conflicting factions, if you think Acts 15 is at all historical.
As an atheist I just feel like when the Christians try to make any kind of historical argument I find it unconvincing because they gloss over the details.
I'm curious what you have in mind here.
The issue with Christians is they really want Jesus to be the messiah.
Well, he was claiming that, and fit some prophecies.
If they dropped that then they could actually understand something about themselves, and then I would feel comfortable worshipping with them.
What does worship even mean here?
Felagund
6mo ago
It is far easier to simply generalise groups, Tutsis or Yorubas are simply seen as Africans.
If we didn't want to do that, what would be your recommended more detailed classification?
Felagund
7mo ago
Predestination-leaning Roman Catholics are just "Roman Catholics".
Sure, but there's a difference as to what extent God's will is seen as posterior vs. prior to the decision, right?
I know there were big controversies between Jesuits and Dominicans at some point, and the Franciscans had still another position, I believe.
the very choice to repent is motivated purely by God
Yes, it does depend upon God giving us a new heart, etc. etc.
and the choice not to repent is likewise compelled by God.
Well, not in the same way. It's not a direct action on the part of God; it's the inevitable result of our fallen state barring divine grace.
Agency does not exist.
Sure it does. We're just, in our fallen states, bad agents, at least in the respects relevant in these instances.
The sinner who will not repent was never free to repent, and the elect who repents was never free not to repent.
This depends pretty heavily on what you mean by free.
The universe is a clockwork contraption devised for a glorious divine drama.
Well, I'm not necessarily committed to that. I'd be fine with, for example, direct action by God in determining how quantum states collapse each time. I'm not actually endorsing that position specifically, but I have no problem with it. But sure, I have no problem with a deterministic world, and it is for God's glory. Just don't use determinism as a grounds to minimize it.
If God designed it that way, Lily Philips could never not sleep with 100 men, nor repent for sleeping with 100 men. It was all a plan, scripted by God, for God's greater glory.
Depending on what you mean by "could," sure. But surely you also would agree that conditional on God's knowing that Lily Philips would sleep with 100 men, that would necessarily happen? And not only knowledge, but as part of God's decrees in ordering the world—his will, not just his knowledge? I mean, Molinists would affirm that, not just Thomists, correct?
I do not see the calivinist view as inherently ridiculous (or even monstrous, as people often describe it), but it is a real difference from other denominations.
Are you aware of the Dominican-Jesuit debate? Do things like "physical premotion" mean anything to you? (Note that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on these myself.) Are you aware that the esteemed Thomas Aquinas is thoroughly on the more strongly predestinarian side of these himself?
Felagund
7mo ago
It's funny to me that Moldbug opposes the Reformation and the puritans, whereas Carlyle was a fan of them both. I haven't read enough of either to have opinions on why that might be, given Moldbug's high esteem for Carlyle, but it's funny.
Felagund
7mo ago
The Protestants would also affirm that their church predates the codification and writing of the scriptures (at least of the new testament).
The Augsburg confession was written by Melanchthon. Edit: Luther did play a role in its drafting.
But this is pretty close to being true, at least, if you're construing sola scriptura as talking about use of other authorities in general, rather than whether there exist other final authorities accessible to the modern church.
Felagund
7mo ago
Why would liberals have to allow this? Locke, for example, absolutely thought the government could punish sexual immorality. I'm not familiar enough with his work to know whether there's any inconsistencies there, but it seems like, as a matter of fact, most liberal societies thought banning that sort of thing was fine.
Felagund
7mo ago
The state may absolutely still put that thug to death, or whatever other punishment.
Yes, the hatred is sufficient to merit hell. This is not unusual or weird in Christianity. Essentially everything we do merits hell. We are only saved through Christ's work. If the victim is not united with Christ, then, sure, improperly proportioned hatred for the thug suffices to damn.
Felagund
7mo ago
It's pretty normal in Christianity to admit of degrees of guilt. See, for example, when Jesus wishes woe upon Capernaum, saying that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for them. See also how some kings of Israel are praised but caveated, whereas others are outright condemned, because the first class forbid pagan gods but allowed worship of God in the high places, whereas the worse kings allowed pagan worship.
You'll also see some people saying that the sin that's committed has effects on willingness to repent, but I'm not really knowledgeable of that.
Felagund
7mo ago
As a Calvinist, it's the case that:
For everyone, if they were to repent, would be saved. Not everyone will in fact repent, but only those whom God predestines.
This isn't unique to the Calvinists, though. You'll see the same thing here among the more predestination-leaning Roman Catholics (like those following Thomas Aquinas) or Lutherans (like Luther or Walther, but not like Gerhard, if I remember correctly).
(Also, the TULIP acronym isn't ideal, especially in that the L is considerably more optional within the Reformed tradition than the other four. But it's a popular characterization, and frequently used by those within.)
What do you make of Peter and unclean foods in Acts? What sorts of things do you think were peculiar to Paul? What do you make of him checking notes with the apostles in Galatians 2?
More options
Context Copy link