My biggest problem with Born-Again Christianity

[creekster]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Not a big fan of Eli Cash?

This is apparently the second time today I have referenced a movie title that is far away from the experience of all you youngsters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Cowboy

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I can say a ton more on this (and on your second point) but I'm not sure how much interest there is, and I shall have to wait until later when I have more time. Today is, after all, Land Run Day. So I have two boys to dress up as cowboys so they can go re-enact the part of American History in which we take the land away from the Indians and give it to homesteaders free of charge.

This is, quite possibly, the funniest comment ever on the Guard.

Well done, Barbara.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sorry to disappoint, Creek, but there's still plenty of time to redirect Junior's thinking. You see, we don't tend to think of the Sooner heritage as so much cheating, per se. It's more a celebration of the art of finding creative advantages over one's peers.

Like getting paid to not work at a car dealership?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

This is, quite possibly, the funniest comment ever on the Guard.

Well done, Barbara.

How do they reenact the land grab? Do they use men grabbing women?

I wonder how this works.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Like getting paid to not work at a car dealership?

That right there would be a classic example.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is apparently the second time today I have referenced a movie title that is far away from the experience of all you youngsters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Cowboy

I got the movie reference. Did you get mine?

[BarbaraGordon]

Okay, now that we're finished discussing Cowboys, Indians, and Sooners (not necessarily in that order), I shall return the thread to the point from whence it came.

Venkman asks about two doctrines, the first being the preservation of the saints.

As I mentioned above, the preservation of the saints is one of the five points of Calvinism, the underpinning of Methodist churches, most Baptist churches, and many non-denominational evangelical churches. So this is closely tied to the doctrine of the Elect.

Calvin suggests that God foreknew and predestined the believers, the Elect, i.e., those who will attain salvation. Christ died only for the sins of the Elect, not for humanity as a whole. It follows, then, that if God has already determined the Elect, then nothing those individuals do either before or after the point of conscious acceptance could impact their status as Elect.

So, then, what does it mean if somebody has a "born again" moment and then returns to a life of sin and debauchery? Well, there are those that say that the choice to live such a life is evidence that the individual never truly believed in the saving grace of Christ and thus was never "saved" to begin with. There are others that say that it *is* possible the person experienced a true salvation moment and simply stopped living a fruitful life...such a person would still reach the Kingdom of Heaven but would be filled with shame in the presence of the Savior for all eternity.

-----

Okay, so that's just to give you an idea of the two answers Calvinists tend to have to "what happens if a believer stops living the Christian life?"

If you want more of what-Barbara-thinks (and who wouldn't) instead of a rough outline of Calvinist thought, here goes:

The doctrine of preservation of the saints does not bother me at all.

What really bothers me much more is the doctrine of the Elect. The idea that God is not unlike "The Claw" in Toy Story, arbitrarily choosing who will go and who will stay, well that bothers me a lot. And that those whom he rejects are just SOL. I don't like that depiction of the Almighty. It may be an accurate depiction-I don't know. But I don't like it nonetheless.

This depiction does have some Biblical merit:

Romans 9
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?

But I don't care I just plain don't like those verses.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Okay, now that we're finished discussing Cowboys, Indians, and Sooners (not necessarily in that order), I shall return the thread to the point from whence it came.

Venkman asks about two doctrines, the first being the preservation of the saints.

As I mentioned above, the preservation of the saints is one of the five points of Calvinism, the underpinning of Methodist churches, most Baptist churches, and many non-denominational evangelical churches. So this is closely tied to the doctrine of the Elect.

Calvin suggests that God foreknew and predestined the believers, the Elect, i.e., those who will attain salvation. Christ died only for the sins of the Elect, not for humanity as a whole. It follows, then, that if God has already determined the Elect, then nothing those individuals do either before or after the point of conscious acceptance could impact their status as Elect.

So, then, what does it mean if somebody has a "born again" moment and then returns to a life of sin and debauchery? Well, there are those that say that the choice to live such a life is evidence that the individual never truly believed in the saving grace of Christ and thus was never "saved" to begin with. There are others that say that it *is* possible the person experienced a true salvation moment and simply stopped living a fruitful life...such a person would still reach the Kingdom of Heaven but would be filled with shame in the presence of the Savior for all eternity.

-----

Okay, so that's just to give you an idea of the two answers Calvinists tend to have to "what happens if a believer stops living the Christian life?"

If you want more of what-Barbara-thinks (and who wouldn't) instead of a rough outline of Calvinist thought, here goes:

The doctrine of preservation of the saints does not bother me at all.

What really bothers me much more is the doctrine of the Elect. The idea that God is not unlike "The Claw" in Toy Story, arbitrarily choosing who will go and who will stay, well that bothers me a lot. And that those whom he rejects are just SOL. I don't like that depiction of the Almighty. It may be an accurate depiction-I don't know. But I don't like it nonetheless.

This depiction does have some Biblical merit:
But I don't care I just plain don't like those verses.

Reading the footnotes the commentary to these verses show that Paul is speaking metaphorically of God's sovereignty, not necessarily of a concept of election in the Calvinistic sense. He states this Chapter is to argue against the then current sentiment of a birthright to salvation, "being Abraham's seed." He thereafter uses biblical metaphors. IOW, it seem these verses should not be taken literally, i.e., God capriciously and arbitrarily makes judgment, only that God's judgment is just and not dependent upon being a descendant of Abraham, for God chose Pharaoh to show his power. Calvinism turns it on its head because are claiming to know God's judgment, when these verses really means, you cannot know God's judgment simply through association or birth.

[Archaea]

As an aside, a law professor asked the question, "What happens to the children of lawyers who refuse to read footnotes?"

Answer: "They starve."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I got the movie reference. Did you get mine?

Sure, but it was a royal pain in the Tannenbaum.