Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9046 total)
139 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 137 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 887,238 Year: 4,884/14,102 Month: 482/707 Week: 37/176 Day: 0/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 4 of 175 (824383)
11-27-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
11-27-2017 4:31 PM


Re: Sproul unplugged
Note several recurring themes you need to pursue; "Reformed" "Knox", "Whitefield ". Look these up; the Reformed Movement, John Knox, George Whitefield (sometimes spelled Whitfield) as basic reading before getting into Sprouls position itself.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 11-27-2017 4:31 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 11-28-2017 12:42 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 8 of 175 (824455)
11-29-2017 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LamarkNewAge
11-28-2017 11:49 PM


Re: "The Bible is a fallible collection" R C Sproul
LNA, you are taking stuff out of context there son, doing the same dishonest quotemining as the Biblical Christians. There was more to his comment and he then went on to explain the context in full.

Go back and include all of the statement.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-28-2017 11:49 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 9:03 AM jar has responded
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-29-2017 11:53 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 11 of 175 (824465)
11-29-2017 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
11-29-2017 9:03 AM


Re: The Protestant Reformation
Phat writes:

For the purposes of understanding RC Sproul in context, how far back should I go?

There's a lot to learn and remember, this is all stuff I believe should be taught beginning around the end of elementary and into middle and upper school. What I think is needed is a basic eight to ten year course and taught at a time when kids minds are still sponges, rapidly absorbing all that is there. You are coming late to the course and the biggest threat right now is simply getting overwhelmed by the many avenues opened for exploration. Make a list of paths to come back to but initially stay on just one path.

The Protestant Reformation and Reformed Theology are not synonymous; Reformed Theology is but one of the different movements that made up the Protestant Reformation.

To understand RC Sproul you need to start with the two primary figures that created Reform Theology, John Knox and John Calvin. You also need to make note of some of the major tenets and also structure that evolved. Try to keep track of what they tried to accomplish and the hurdles they faced.

So much of all the different Chapters or Club Christian revolves around the issue of who is the authority and what is authoritative. And it is at those very basic points I find Sproul to be at best making really stupid comments but most likely simply willfully ignorant. Often he seems just about to make the leap into wisdom but then seems to pull back from the precipice.

Start with those two figures and look at what they saw as the proper organization of their Chapters.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 9:03 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 10:24 AM jar has responded
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 10:57 AM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 11:16 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 13 of 175 (824469)
11-29-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
11-29-2017 10:24 AM


Re: Focus: George Whitfield
Look at part of what you are quoting.

quote:
An actor by training, he would shout the word of God, weep with sorrow, and tremble with passion as he delivered his sermons. Colonists flocked by the thousands to hear him speak. He converted slaves and even a few Native Americans. Even religious skeptic Benjamin Franklin emptied his coin purse after hearing him speak in Philadelphia.

Even if Ben did not really empty his coin purse; look at the picture being painted there. Think back to "message vs messenger". Think back to Evangelical Televangelists.

Are there any similarities?

By the way, many of Whitfield's sermons are collected online and they too reflect all the traits I have tried to shine a light upon; bumper sticker theology, quote mining, taking things out of context, proof texts.

Edited by jar, : missing "


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 10:24 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 12-10-2017 12:11 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 17 of 175 (824533)
11-30-2017 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by LamarkNewAge
11-29-2017 11:53 PM


Re: "The Bible is a fallible collection" R C Sproul
LNA writes:

Rome believes the (GOVERNMENT IMPOSED) church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the (GOVERNMENT) church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.

And that is as dishonest as your quote mining. Sorry but just like the fundies you are just making shit up.

Yes, more education is needed but what you are doing is the same propagandizing as those you criticize.

You are also missing what is significant in the basics of the beliefs of some Chapters of Club Christian so go back and read it again in context and think about it as well as the actual basis for Biblical inerrancy.

The most recent formulation was the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and RC Sproul was a major organizer and signatory to that document so it is relevant to this discussion.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy stands in direct opposition to Lockes position; but remember that it is still limited and does not reflect Christianity but just some Chapters of Christianity. It is the latest affirmation of a Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-29-2017 11:53 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 10:17 AM jar has responded
 Message 20 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-30-2017 11:34 AM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 19 of 175 (824558)
11-30-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
11-30-2017 10:17 AM


Re: Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is so filled with internal inconsistency and contradictions that I cannot imagine anyone could honesty sign such an utterly stupid document without being a conman.

It admits there are no original manuscripts, and that the copies are not infallible, but then says the originals can be inferred from the copies and so the originals, that don't exist and can only be inferred from fallible sources are infallible.

Give me a break.

It also makes God a liar, cheat, Loki trickster since it goes on to claim that the reality we call this universe and that does in fact totally refute much of what is recorded as history in the Bible like the creation tales and flood and conquest of Canaan and Exodus and the earth standing still should be ignored over what is written in admittedly fallible and internally contradictory Bible stories.

Give me a fucking break.

The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is an accurate description and indictment of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty.

Phat writes:

These evangelical leaders are not simply TV hucksters such as Falwell, Baker, Hagan, Copeland, and Hinn.

And what evidence is there to support that assertion.

Phat writes:

Would you say that they are all willfully ignorant and in fact liars?

At best and in particular willful liars even to themselves. They, like you, are making assertions that the would want to be true rather than face what actually is shown in the evidence. But they could simply be completely delusional; and totally out of touch with reality.

Here is a link to the full Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 10:17 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 5:33 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 25 of 175 (824586)
11-30-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Phat
11-30-2017 5:33 PM


Re: Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy
Phat writes:

You yourself criticize the Chicago Statement for making God out to be a liar and a trickster but have asserted elsewhere that the god character lied. Critics would ask why one character is any nobler than the other?

I point out what the story found in Genesis 2&3 itself says, not what I say, when discussing the Bible stories.

I point out what reality shows when comparing what the stories claim to the actual universe we live in.

Nobility is irrelevant.

The different writers created gods that they could imagine, and in fact the god character in the stories is very much like any despot of the period. In the oldest stories the God character is like any prince or king or warlord; often capricious, quick to anger, without empathy, jealous of rights and often insecure. The same character though can be friendly, comforting, forgiving or unfriendly, unforgiving, demanding. They created a super human. As the tales evolve over time the God character first become Mira, the fates, then the offstage voice, and in the New Testament almost non-present.

Sproul can and does try to support his position from a doctrinal position. That is generally fine until he crosses the line from what is believed to what must be true.

To claim there are no contradictions or that stuff like the flood or special creation or the Exodus or conquest of Canaan are historically accurate is simply nonsense, absurd, false silly, pathetic. He can fall back on the excuse that human minds are fallen and so cannot interpret the data but the obvious response is that he is making a claim that the target got hit and EVERYONE and EVERY METHOD shows there are no holes in the target.

Sproul and other members of the Reformed Theology movement can make the claims but then they need to also stand by the implications of their positions; that if the Flood happened then the God hid every single bit of evidence to hide the reality and if Election is true then the God is an vile, evil nasty picayune creature that should be opposed and condemned by every honest and loving individual in the world.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 5:33 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 28 of 175 (824604)
12-01-2017 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
12-01-2017 2:42 AM


Re: God Character On Trial
Phat writes:

So logically, instead of Calvinism what would be the logical presentation or depiction of said evolving God character today?

Throw God away.

Instead, do what Jesus (and many other similar religious leaders) said; feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful, protect the weak.

GOD, if GOD exists, does not need anything from humans.

Phat writes:

What would be the logical implication of such a stand, however? If humans collectively opposed and condemned God, what should Gods next step be? Try and look at it from the evolving characters point of view...

Reasonably, the first step would be for the congregation to stand up and walk out of that church and throw that God away.

That God could then evolve into something acceptable or simply get forgotten as has happened to most Gods.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 2:42 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 33 of 175 (824635)
12-01-2017 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Phat
12-01-2017 1:42 PM


Re: Reformed Theology is Calvinism
And again, that is simply an example of either Sproul's willful ignorance or his dishonesty.

Calvinism is one of the Chapters in the Reformed Theology section of Club Christian but there is not even some "Calvinism™" but rather many flavors of Calvinism.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 1:42 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 3:45 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 4:05 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 36 of 175 (824658)
12-01-2017 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
12-01-2017 4:05 PM


Re: Biblical Christianity and J.Vernon McGee
Phat writes:

jar writes:

Calvinism is one of the Chapters in the Reformed Theology section of Club Christian but there is not even some "Calvinism™" but rather many flavors of Calvinism.

Can you elaborate? What did Sproul fail to address?

You are doing a pretty fair job yourself. You are finding examples of people that market Reformed Theology based products yet denounce Calvinism. In addition there is not just one Calvinistic denomination but rather many. Note SOME Presbyterian or Methodist or Baptist or Lutheran churches identify as Calvinist yet others do not.

When Sproul makes a statement claiming that his interpretations represent Christianity or Reformed Theology or Calvinism he is simply letting his mouth write a check his ass can't cash. Talk about arrogance and you are pointing at folk like Sproul.

Phat writes:

Is Biblical Christianity, as defined by you, all about Calvinism and if not, what are the beliefs of Biblical Christianity that are in your opinion dishonest and/or worthless?

I tend to consider people who claim to be "Biblical Christians" as Biblical Christians. I believe them. And then I take their statements and examine them in relation to what the Bible actually says rather than what they claim the Bible says.

What soon becomes apparent is that "Biblical Christians", most of those who self identify as "Biblical Christians", says things that show they do not actually believe what the Bible says. In fact, they work very hard and even created a whole profession of folk called apologists whose sole job is to try to make up ways to get around and avoid admitting what the the Bible actually does say and the fact that the Bible is filled with factual errors, contradictions, evolving folk tales and just plain silly stuff.

I find Calvinism evil.

I find most of "Biblical Christianity" simply pathetic, pretty harmless and so more a matter of willful ignorance than anything evil. It's sad and stupid but if it helps folk then fine.

Calvinism IMHO is a cancer that should be rooted out.

"Biblical Christianity" on the other hand is simply kids and children and there is always hope and lots of evidence that at least some of them will grow up.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 12-01-2017 4:05 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 12-02-2017 11:15 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 12-02-2017 2:14 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 42 of 175 (824707)
12-02-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
12-02-2017 2:14 PM


Re: Its All Unexplained
If there is evidence then Faith is not required.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 12-02-2017 2:14 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 12-02-2017 8:44 PM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:22 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 46 of 175 (824966)
12-05-2017 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
12-05-2017 5:22 PM


Re: Questions & Answers From RC Sproul
Look at his answers within the context of TULIP.

AbE:

Phat writes:

Classical Apologetics, Sproul included, assume that God requires perfect obedience from us.

Again, look at what is actually written in the Bible stories. Remember, for every quote taken out of context there is another quote that can be taken out of context to refute the former. Or the Latter!

So look at the stories as a whole. They are filled with tales of humans interacting with the God character where there is NOT perfect obedience. This pattern starts pretty early in the stories and goes right on through to the end.

Adam & Eve disobey but God does not damn them to hell, he makes clothes for them. God wrestles with Jacob and God praises him for struggling with God and even renames him. Peter walks to Jesus but loses his nerve and starts to sink but Jesus reaches out and holds him up. Peter denies Jesus yet Jesus says Peter will be the foundation upon which all is built.

Sure, the Calvinists can pick pieces parts to support their picayune god but they must do so by taking those pieces parts out of context.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Edited by jar, : eve not even


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:22 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:30 PM jar has responded
 Message 138 by Phat, posted 10-07-2019 8:23 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 48 of 175 (824969)
12-05-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
12-05-2017 5:30 PM


Re: Questions & Answers From RC Sproul
Sorry, I hit the wrong key. See the AbE in the prior message.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:30 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 49 of 175 (824987)
12-06-2017 9:48 AM


origins
My comment when you brought up Sproul was that Sprouls says some really stupid things at times. An example is the one you have as a quote in your signature; "Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul".

Let me try to explain.

That comment is also implicit in the Calvinist belief system, that they are among the elect, that God chose them, that Jesus death as a sacrifice only applies to them and that their election was totally irresistible.

But what does reality show?

Calvinists tend to come from Calvinist families raised and educated in the Calvinist tradition.

But the vast majority of folk are not Calvinists.

If you happened to be born in India or Tibet or Vietnam or Cambodia or Japan or Korea or Thailand the odds are you will not be a Calvinist or even a Christian.

But that's the plan the Calvinist says?

So there are two possibilities. God, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, created lots and lots of Thais and Tibetans and Japanese and Koreans and Vietnamese and Cambodians and decided they were not elected and that Jesus salvation would not apply to them and that they would be able to resist even attempts at election.

The second possibility is that chance played a part in them not being Calvinists. They were born in areas where Calvinism was not the dominate indoctrination force.

Look at the history of evolution. As conditions changed those critters most adapted to the immediate conditions succeeded while those least adapted to those conditions failed. But conditions changed and so did the success stories.

Can we test chance? Sure, and it does get tested constantly by polls and gambling and sports and failure rate calculations for pieces parts.

Chance exists. Chance is not a myth but a reflection of reality.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 10:26 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33413
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 59 of 175 (825005)
12-06-2017 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
12-06-2017 10:26 AM


the God Calvinists create and market!
Phat writes:

Or can anyone argue that chance is either a person, place, thing, or idea.

Only a conman would make such an argument.

Phat writes:

Sproul argues, if I understand him correctly, that there is no such thing as a cosmic lottery. In reality, a lottery is determined by set probability. If we were to argue that the universe is also a universe of probability, someone or something had to set that probability.

And thus he makes a really stupid argument. No one has to set up any probabilities and again, only a conman would even try to make such an argument.

No one sets the probabilities of a lottery. The probability of any lottery in an inherent property of that particular instance. Stop and think.

In a lottery probability is determined by three things, the number of possible outcomes, the number of lottery tickets sold and the number of lottery tickets any one individual person buys. If a person buys enough tickets to account for every possible outcome, the probability of that person winning that lottery is 100%.

In reality chance is also an inherent property of the universe. Everything can't happen at once. Not everything happens at the same place.

Phat writes:

The argument being that God is not a random God who favors nothing and directs no one.

But again, that is simply more of Sproul's conman spiel. That is not what Sproul really markets.

What Calvinists market is that God favors them only and specifically, that Jesus death as atonement is not for everyone but Calvinists only, that God chose Calvinist only.

Remember the L in TULIP; Limited Atonement. It is perhaps the most vile form of Christianity I can imagine and goes directly against what the Bible claims Jesus taught.

"Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect."

Think back to the conversation about the War Lord and food.

Limited Atonement is worse than the example of the warlord. Compare the I in TULIP (Irresitable Grace) to the threat of starvation.

"When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. "

Remember while the offer is to all it is only God that chooses the elect.

What Sproul markets, what all of Calvin markets, is simply the warlord god at his worst. The elect cannot even choose to starve but rather get force fed at the whim of the warlord.

But that is simply the god Sproul and Calvin created and market. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality or the universe.

Reality says that everything will not happen at once or in one place. Therefore probability, chance, is an inherent factor in the universe.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and add what I in TULIP stands for


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 10:26 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Phat, posted 10-08-2019 3:28 PM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021