Why do some people believe and some do not?

[cv5]

Pelagianism at its finest.

I have utter and complete disregard for ALL such synthetic man-centric philosophical "file folders".
Or their contents. Guaranteed they will crash and burn under scrutiny one way or another.

Paul KNOWS that Greek thought is.....USELESS.
And has less than ZERO to do with God's plan and program of salvation.

Pelagius was active between about 390 and 418.[1] He was said by his contemporaries, such as Augustine of Hippo, Prosper of Aquitaine, Marius Mercator, and Paul Orosius, to have been of Celtic British origin.[1] Jerome apparently thought that Pelagius was Irish, suggesting that he was "stuffed with Irish porridge" (Scotorum pultibus praegravatus).[5]: 206  He was tall in stature and portly in appearance. Pelagius was also highly educated, spoke and wrote Latin and Greek with great fluency, and was well versed in theology. His name has traditionally been understood as a Graecized form (from pélagos, "sea") of the Welsh name Morgan ("sea-born"), or another Celtic equivalent.[6]

 

[Magenta]

God is the same yesterday, today, forever. That is the point.

The point -which you obviously missed- is that there are those who claim God is unfair if He does
not reveal Himself to everyone in the exact same way as He reveals Himself to any one person.

Therefore in order for God to be "fair" in that view He must always reveal Himself as a burning bush as He did
to Moses, or in the same way He did with Paul on the road to Damascus etc and OBVIOUSLY that is not the case.

Scripture is in fact full of examples of God revealing Himself in different ways.

Despite the objections of those who claim it makes Him unfair to do so.

 

[posthuman]

I have utter and complete disregard for ALL such synthetic man-centric philosophical "file folders".
Or their contents. Guaranteed they will crash and burn under scrutiny one way or another.

Paul KNOWS that Greek thought is.....USELESS.
And has less than ZERO to do with God's plan and program of salvation.

Pelagius was active between about 390 and 418.[1] He was said by his contemporaries, such as Augustine of Hippo, Prosper of Aquitaine, Marius Mercator, and Paul Orosius, to have been of Celtic British origin.[1] Jerome apparently thought that Pelagius was Irish, suggesting that he was "stuffed with Irish porridge" (Scotorum pultibus praegravatus).[5]: 206  He was tall in stature and portly in appearance. Pelagius was also highly educated, spoke and wrote Latin and Greek with great fluency, and was well versed in theology. His name has traditionally been understood as a Graecized form (from pélagos, "sea") of the Welsh name Morgan ("sea-born"), or another Celtic equivalent.[6]

a knowledge of history is very valuable.

the finest Pelagianism is semi Pelagianism, to which Pelagius turned after he was confronted by bishops in Jerusalem.

but it's still Pelagianism, and still error.

 

[sawdust]

What do you mean by trapped?
And who said he isn't still human?

You said man's nature was altered. Changed to what exactly, animal, machine, alien fish? If man is still human, his nature has not altered, has it? Can he express all that it means to be human when he has a corruption in his flesh and a lack of spiritual life that prevents him from being all that it means to be human ie. made in the image and likeness of God?

Romans 7:24
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

We are trapped in a hopeless position, spiritually dead with a body of corruption. Grace and truth comes beside us to show us there is hope, there is light at the end of the tunnel (so to speak).

As I understand you, based on what I have read of your posts, you seem to be under the impression that we are by nature born evil. If that were true no-one could be saved. There would be no redemption, evil cannot be redeemed, it can only be destroyed. We are born neither good nor evil for these things are an aspect of our character, not our nature. God alone is good by nature, ie. inherently good. We learn good or evil based on our response to the grace and truth with which God presents to us.

This thread asked the question why do some people believe and others not? It didn't ask why are some saved and some not. Jesus told us the answer, some prefer darkness, some prefer light. The two will never understand each other any more than chocoholics will understand why some don't like chocolate or why some are cat people and some are dog people. We are either believers because we value goodness, righteousness and truth or we are unbelievers because we value self. When did you find out you were a believer? (rhetorical question). There are many in the world right now that think they are unbelievers but, before their life is through, they will find out that's not true. God promised to save believers.

 

[posthuman]

I have utter and complete disregard for ALL such synthetic man-centric philosophical "file folders".
Or their contents.

you don't seem to have a problem with 'calvanism' - - in fact you seem to love that file folder so much you refuse to read it's contents, for fear they won't fit in the handy folder anymore, perhaps?

lol
really bro you will like Augustine. i almost as shocked you have not read him already, as i am that you are refusing to now.
the anti-nicene fathers and the desert fathers are a faaaar better use of our time than political youtube. personally I am relieved the elections are over in our country and now i finally stop wasting time looking at the news at all, and just read things like this.

don't be that guy who speaks from ignorance. have a look. it will give us something worthwhile to talk about, and we won't just be spouting BS other people fed us

Of Grace and Free Will - Augustine

 

[Magenta]

God is the same yesterday, today, forever. That is the point.

Furthermore, that same person who claims God is unfair to do what He does in the way that He does it, mocks
and scoffs at the idea of personal revelation, which they characterize as "gnosis" in their desperately dishonest
attempt to make it seem like it is something to be avoided instead of something to be treasured. God promised
to reveal Himself to those who diligently seek Him, but they find this idea laughably deplorable.

 

[sawdust]

Romans 9 is not talking about the setting up and tearing down of earthly kingdoms. it's talking about salvation, how it must be, how it is, how it works and how to live in it. just like Romans 1-8 and Romans 10-16 are.

Romans 9 is not out by itself in left field completely unrelated to the rest of the epistle. it is exactly what naturally follows from Romans 6-8, which is exactly the omniscient conclusion of 1-5, and Romans 9 is exactly what sets the stage for Roman's 10-16.

yes it is talking about nations, but nations do not exist except for the people who make them up.

How do you come up with this response? As far as I am concerned you are now out in left field. I said Romans 9 was about what God does with His people. Is Israel not a nation? Is the Church not a royal nation?

Romans 9 is not talking about what people believe or not believe. It's not talking about God saving His people, it is talking about how He chooses to use them for His purposes. It has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms and I never mentioned anything about them.

You might be the most devout Christian in the world, filled with God's Spirit, loving, kind and patient to a fault. This does not mean God must therefore use you as another Billy Graham or a Martin Luther. He has mercy on whom He has mercy and uses them according to his purpose and not according to their status, even if their status with God is most pleasing. He is well within His right to put you in some back corner of the world where you have little impact.

If this passage was about salvation, it wouldn't be talking about Esau or the Pharaoh. It is talking about how God displays His power which is by His own determining and not by the reckoning of men. It is not restricted to the saved.

 

[posthuman]

Actually, both are explained by admitting that man's will regarding salvation is limited to beginning by seeking God or salvation, which God enables although not irresistibly, and by acknowledging that God's Way of salvation (The Elect/Christ) or grace is accepted by non-meritorious faith. IOW, seeking will and saving faith are effectively the same.

this does not explain how salvation is not by the will of man - - you're actually denying that in your last statement, saying human will = saving faith.

 

[posthuman]

You seem confused it was not Augustine's belief on free will that was under discussion but his views on fallen human nature.

how about you actually read Augustine?

have you? obviously not, because he talks about both together and how they relate.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm


when you have actually read what he had to say we can talk about what he had to say. not before.

 

[Magenta]

don't be that guy who speaks from ignorance.

how about you actually read Augustine?

You assume they are interested in the truth of the matter? Hmmmm...

 

[posthuman]

Nope. Don't have time.
The fact that he was deeply into Greek philosophy is too big of a red flag for me to ignore in any case.

you have no idea if that's a fact because you refuse to find out, even though you have plenty of time to respond.

it's simple wisdom to take the opportunity to hear the actual source instead of believing what some guy on a radio told you, since it's openly available.

what if i refused to read the Bible since i had already read a Wikipedia article about it, plus watched two YouTube videos? what would you tell me?

you'd tell me i was being an idiot, and you'd be 100% right.

 

[posthuman]

You assume they are interested in the truth of the matter? Hmmmm...

yeah.

we are good friends, actually

 

[HeIsHere]

how about you actually read Augustine?

have you? obviously not, because he talks about both together and how they relate.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm


when you have actually read what he had to say we can talk about what he had to say. not before.

I have, several years ago, I am well aware how he ties the two together which is philosophical not theological, no worries I have no

desire to discuss Catholicism which I know very well and its offshoots like Reformed theology .. so no worries.

 

[Magenta]

you have no idea if that's a fact because you refuse to find out, even though you have plenty of time to respond.

it's simple wisdom to take the opportunity to hear the actual source instead of believing what some guy on a radio told you, since it's openly available.

what if i refused to read the Bible since i had already read a Wikipedia article about it, plus watched two YouTube videos? what would you tell me?

you'd tell me i was being an idiot, and you'd be 100% right.

Well, he is the same guy who highly recommended some false teacher to all of us.

 

[Magenta]

I have, several years ago, I am well aware how he ties the two together which is philosophical not theological, no worries I have no

desire to discuss Catholicism which I know very well and its offshoots like Reformed theology .. so no worries.

So you say but you are not to be believed with all your bragging of your research credentials
which fail you time and time again. Case in point, which you never acknowledge due to your
lack of honesty: inability is not exclusive to Calvinism, though you present it as if it were.

 

[posthuman]

I have, several years ago, I am well aware how he ties the two together which is philosophical not theological, no worries I have no

desire to discuss Catholicism which I know very well and its offshoots like Reformed theology .. so no worries.

Augustine is hundreds of years before the rcc. absolutely unrelated.

when he says 'catholic' he means the literal meaning, that is, the general, universal beliefs of the church of God.

please have a rudimentary sense of history.

give specific examples of your objections, please. you having an unknown many years ago read the work and having no specific objections don't make for useful discussion.

link:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm

 

[HeIsHere]

Augustine is hu dress of years before the rcc.

when he says 'catholic' he means the literal meaning, that is, the general, universal beliefs of the church of God.

give me specific examples of your objections. you having many years ago read the work and having completely no specific objections don't make for useful discussion.

There are many priests who know his works well .... there is an Order of St. Augustine.
I have had several priest instructors, I will say very knowledgeable and high academics in both theology and philosophy.

I will admit when I first read his works I read it when an academic lens for research purposes, that is a different lens than what we are discussing here.
I would have to refresh my knowledge bank ... .. I know my main general objective but again I do not remember how he supports his ideas. ... I will see how the wind blows, tomorrow is a holiday

 

[Magenta]

There are many priests who know his works well .... there is an Order of St. Augustine.
I have had several priest instructors, I will say very knowledgeable and high academics in both theology and philosophy.

I will admit when I first read his works I read it when an academic lens for research purposes, that is a different lens than what we are discussing here.
I would have to refresh my knowledge bank ... .. I know my main general objective but again I do not remember how he supports his ideas. ... I will see how the wind blows, tomorrow is a holiday

Arguing from ignorance from you is not surprising.

 

[Magenta]

yeah.

we are good friends, actually

Well, dearest post and beloved brother of mine, I hope you know I would not hesitate in the least to
acknowledge you as my superior in many things, and certainly you are a better person than I... though
perhaps your "friend" there does not make up blasphemous things about God and then say that is what
you believe in his haste to elevate himself in any despicable way he can. I don't know, maybe you would
find such reprehensible behaviour tolerable from a friend. But he has been lying to me for years. Not much
has changed in that regard. Still, I wish you well in your association with him. Perhaps you, with your deep
wells of patience and forbearance, as well as depth of Scriptural understanding, will have a better outcome
than many others here... I have had him on ignore for quite a while, because his lies are so outrageous and
persistent, there is not much point in me trying to engage with him on any good faith level.

 

[posthuman]

I have, several years ago, I am well aware how he ties the two together which is philosophical not theological, no worries I have no

desire to discuss Catholicism which I know very well and its offshoots like Reformed theology .. so no worries.

honestly the more i think about it, the more i am convinced this reply is nonsense.

Augustine is absolutely unrelated to the rcc. You clearly don't know what you are talking about in terms of history.

And Augustine quotes the scriptures and apocrypha exclusively - - not once any Greek philosophy at all - - and even the apocrypha is not quoted alone, but substantiating what is already fully proven by scripture.
you also clearly don't know what you are talking about in terms of what this man wrote.

i do not think you ever read him. i think all you did was once years ago read a blog by someone who hated him, who completely misrepresented and lied about him, and you absorbed it because it was easier than actually examining your own influences.


Just
Like
Every
Other
Vain
Worthless
Human
Ever