Joined April 2022
- Tweets27.8K
- Following391
- Followers1.1K
- Likes58.8K
Jenga Theology Update:
There are two ways I have looked at this.
One is to say what I have highlighted below. It is the opening assertion made by @IndianaBrunner. That road leads to the Universalism.
To demonstrate:
P1: Christ does love every person,
P2: We are saved because Christ loves us and not because we love him,
C1: Therefore, every person is saved because Christ loves them irrespective of whether they love Christ (Universalism).
The easy way out of this is the one that digs the hole deeper: denying that Christ (God) loves everyone. This destroys more orthodox theology.
To demonstrate why this does not work, let's assume the premises we need ad argumentum.
P1: Christ does not love every person.
P2: Christ commands his followers to love every person.
C1: Christ commands love from others towards those he does not love.
P3: This love must originate from some place.
C2: Since this love does not originate from Christ, something which is not Christ (God) must be the origin.
This attempt to solve the original argument's universamism dilemma takes you into some odd mix of heresies claiming love can originate from a source that is not God. Do not go back in time to tell Calvin this. He would have labeled you a heretic and banished you...... if you were lucky.
Finally, there is the second way I tried looking at this. This is to say , "we love Christ because he loved us first."
This nukes irresistible grace. If what saves us is Christ's love for us, and our own love for him is merely a response to that, then you get to choose between Universalism (everyone is saved because Christ loves everyone), and denying irresistible grace (because the non elect are loved by Christ, but they resist that love as evidenced by them not loving Christ).
To place them in syllogism form:
P1: If Christ loves every person;
P2: And his love saves us with our love for him being a mere response;
P3: And not every person loves Christ (resisting Christ's love);
C1: Then response to Christ's love is resistable.
P4: If saving grace is irresistible;
C2: Then Christ's love for us is not the origin of saving grace because it is resisted.
The root problem here is Jenga Theology. As I understand the sequence of events:
@JesusandWhatnot asked the question to @bannedpastor.
Banned Pastor seemed to come up with an answer on the spot. He denied that one needs to love Christ for salvation. It seems he justified this by indicating that humans are incapable of fully loving Christ (which is a problem when you scrap Purgatory).
@riecker claimed here that one does need to love Christ.
Then, @IndianaBrunner chimed in and claimed that, since humans can only love Christ because Christ loves them first, that love for Christ is not required for salvation......... for some reason. I am unsure whether he even knows about the original interaction that started this.
On March 14, 2023, Doug Wilson made and published a video on Youtube titled, "Theological Jenga and Full Preterism." Therein, he invoked Chesterton's Fence to criticize the tendency that some have to impulsively scrap orthodox theological premises that interfere with the immediate point they are making (in that case, full preterists).
When I reference Jenga Theology, I am including one additional detail beyond merely discarding these ancient premises. I am most concerned with the person uses one premise in a single argument, and then negates the same premise in another argument. Since theological systems are made of multiple arguments, this creates an internally inconsistent system of theology that simply washes away under scrutiny.
Imagine that the man from the Chesterton's Fence example (look it up if you are unfamiliar) does not merely come upon a Fence blocking his way and decide to wreck it without understanding why it is there. He tears it down when it suits him and rebuilds it when he decides later that it suits his immediate objective. To top it off, he cannot seem to remember that it was him who built it or tore it down.
Does anyone think that someone who constantly contradicts his/her theological system takes theology seriously?
I made this from a phone, and my thumbs are stubby and fat. If I have made a grammar mistake, please be patient.
youtu.be/YClINbWfiCM?is=diFkβ¦
The more they talk the more I realize they donβt really understand the gospel.
It is not our love for Christ that saves us, but Christβs love for us.
βIn this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.β (1 John 4:10)
βWe love because he first loved us.β (1 John 4:19)
Our love is not the cause of our salvation, but the consequence of it. We do not love in order to obtain Godβs favor, but because he has already shown us favor in Christ.
Love is not exercised for the sake of self, but for the sake of Christ, his people, and the advancement of his gospel. If you think your love is what justifies you, then you donβt know what love is.
βFor the love of Christ controls usβ¦ that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.β (2 Corinthians 5:14β15)
Our love does not save us. Rather, it serves as a testimony to the love of Christ, through which others may hear the gospel and be saved.
βI do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.β (1 Corinthians 9:23)
We do not love to be saved. We love because we have been saved. And we love so that others might come to know the very love by which we ourselves were saved.
Our love is not the means by which we earn salvation, but an instrument through which God makes his salvation known to others.
When a Shock Jock meets a Philosopher
@JesusandWhatnot really got him to go from βbaptism doesnβt save youβ to βbaptism saves youβ in minutes π
Concerning Starlink
Each Satellite has a life expectancy of about five years. Around 2,000 need to be launched annually to maintain the tempo (much less expand it).
Can the government competently maintain that kind of launch tempo and quality? I will not answer this question. Just food for thought.
46
Good clip!
Every argument for Protestantism boils down to the same thing, which is:
βX is what I believe in, because I personally have chosen to interpret the Word of God in a way that is not at odds with X (but I totally could be wrong about my personal interpretation and X could be completely false)β.
Whether the argument comes from someone like @Soteriology101 or @gavinortlund, who typically seem to at least TRY putting thought into their arguments, or whether it comes from the lazy/trash content created by folks like @taco_talks, @ApologiaStudios, and @needGod_net, the result is always the same. Their argument is nothing more than simply: βI believe in Xβ¦because I said so.β
They are willing to believe in the βWord of Godβ IF the βWord of Godβ can be interpreted in the way that their βWords of Menβ choose to interpret them.
//
Donβt be a Protestant.
Be a Christian.
Believe in Jesus.
Jesus told His followers to listen to His Church (Matthew 18), so when it comes to finding the correct interpretation of the Bible, donβt listen to Protestant men, listen to Jesus.
God bless!
As a child child, my Mother showed me a movie called "Left Behind." When I learned about the antichrist, I said, "Lord, please do not let it be me."
2
8
128
Christian morality predates your secular political concerns by 2,000 years. And, it will remain here when all of your concerns pass away.
Let us #PrayTogether for the proper use of wealth, that not succumbing to the temptation of selfishness,
it may always be put at the service the common good and solidarity of those who have less. Be a part of this prayer: popesprayer.va/praywiththepo⦠#PrayerIntention @clicktopray_en
2
128
Good evening to my 4 followers!
Does anyone think it makes sense for an omniscient (all knowing) God to "change his mind?" To broaden the scope, let us agree that this can be about literally anything!
Food for thought.
2
4
141
I love you brother and you know I do.
But within the 95 Theses, Luther literally anathematized denial of the authority for Indulgences (Apostolic Pardons).
Right after anathematizing that denial, he condemned the selling of such pardons.
The Council of Trent adopted both of these. That complaint, as originally sought, can be rightly counted by Catholics as resolved.
64
The other Pilot was heard praying 'Our Father.'
Let us take a moment to join our prayer with his. For him, all aboard, and everyone else hurt or left behind.
dailymail.com/news/article-1β¦
1. If the internet is causing hate to fill your heart, then please take a break from it. Do not let it cast your soul into hell.
2. Please do not cause others ro stumble by saying awful things.
3. Remember that the anonymity od our words is temporary. On the day of judgements, everything said in the dark is brought to the light.v
When someone is this hurt, it is not time to hurt them further.
Memento Mori, Remember You Must Die.
π΅ Music: "Memento Mori | Remember You Must Die" by Templar Prayer Chants
youtu.be/aOR85x3FDBk
This is an example of rage bait. He did not reply, and the claim is absurd on it's face. He desires to make you angry because he delights in ungodliness.
Do not let yourself be provoked by children of wrath.
Why do Roman Catholic lie? There was NO Bishop of Rome until 350 ish. Itβs a later development period Roman scholars!
If you have to lie. You are not for God!
5
68
