This Is Meant To Be A Response To A Few Calvinists That Are Presently Teaming Up, In
An Attempt To Refute What I'm Saying.
So In The Interest Of The Other Things In My Life I Will Make This An Encyclical For
Them To Pass Around And Suppose That God Hasn't Chosen Me.
I Also Present It This Way For My Website.
Most Of My Messages Are Intended To Refute More Than One Error.
of love and the capacities for fellowship and communion, by their very nature, require another personal being with which
to share them. And God could not fully share Himself except with
another Being equal to Him. Yet the bible says that 'God is love" in Himself alone. This could only be true if within the Godhead itself there is a plurality of Personages,
or or divine Persons, who could express and experience love in relation to one another.
Although the actual word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible, the concept is clearly
expressed there, providing the unity and diversity that makes possible the love, fellowship, and communion within the Godhead.
The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete
in Himself, existing eternally in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, individually distinct from each other yet at
the same time eternally one God. These three loved, communed and fellowshipped with each other and took counsel together before
the universe, angels or man were brought into existence. Truly the biblical triune God "is love" (1 John 4:8,16)-and He alone."
(The Mysterious Trinity, Dave Hunt)
This Is the Starting Point In Determining Personhood.
The Stoics Were Pantheists And Believed In Predestination Or Fate. I Contend That Those
Two Errors Go Hand In Hand.
"Stoicism is characterized as a philosophy of materialism, pantheism, and fatalism.
It is materialistic in the sense that everything that exists possesses corporeality and is ultimately traced back to God.
The Stoic God, redolent of Plato's Timaeus, is said to be the "body" of the universe whereby God is its soul. This
is how Stoicism becomes pantheistic in its understanding of the relationship between the universe and God. It further portrays
a fatalistic universe by declaring that everything that occurs happens by necessity. Nothing is left to any libertarian
volition. This has caused its followers to adopt a sort of apathy
toward our fatalistic universe. This apathy, say the Stoics, is characterized as
"accepting the will of God", something very reminiscent of Christianity. Hence, many make the association of Stoic fatalism with the Christian doctrine of predestination (e.g. the Augustinian-Calvinist
To Declare That The Creator Is Distinct From His creation But That He Predetermines
The Course Of His Creation, Independent Of Their Choices Is No Better Than The Catholics Claiming That They Believe God In
The Flesh Died On Their Behalf But That We Must Do All Kinds Of Other Things To Supplement What God Has Done.
Pantheism Has Many Different Facets To It, But An Impersonal Process Of Which We Are
Mere Cogs Is Part Of It.
"John Toland has a triple claim to fame in the annals of pantheism. It was he who coined
the term pantheist. He was the first strictly materialist and scientific pantheist of modern times. And he was the first to
conceive of a network of societies observing the pantheist religion.
It is important to note what Toland himself meant by pantheist: he meant the belief
that the only divine being is the material Universe itself. Different definitions have been added later by extension and by
error, and have crept into dictionaries where they now lead to confusion. But this is the original and fundamental meaning
of the word pantheist. The closest embodiment today is Scientific Pantheism ."
Hinduism Is Pantheism But Has Millions Of Gods, Their Main Gods Being Shiva, Vishnu,
So Believing In gods Doesn't Negate A Belief In Pantheism And An Impersonal Process.
Just Ask the Hare Krishna's.
"Pantheism has taken many diverse forms. Strict or scientific pantheism holds
that God and the material universe are identical. Its first adherents were the Greek materialist Heraclitus, the Chinese
Taoist Chuang Tzu, and the Stoic philosopher Zeno of Cittium. Later proponents have
included the Christian David of Dinant, the neo-Confucian Chang Tsai, and the author of these pages, Paul Harrison. Taoism
is a form of materialist pantheism, as are some types of Mahayan Buddhism."
In Regards to Predestination, Any God That Predetermines Our Course Apart From Our
Will, Is Commiting Us To An Impersonal Process That Is No Better And Not Much DifferentThan The Pantheist Model.
"The inconceivably complete identity of God is the paradigm of all personhood, at its
very plurality is the foundation of all relatedness. Such is the 'image of God' in which we are made. In that light, the doctrine
of the Trinity is not some facile mystification, but a straightforward statement of the multiple personhood of God ..." (The
Mysterious Trinity, Dave Hunt)
God Was Love Before We Existed. This Is Because Of The Loving Relationship Of The Persons
In The Godhead.
If The Triunity Isn't A Model Of How The God Who Is Love Relates To Us Then We Are
Doomed To An Impersonal Predestination And Fatalism.
"What is particularly amazing to me about this prayer for unity is that Christ uses
the Godhead as an illustration of how unity works. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all IN RELATIONSHIP with each
other. They are the three in One. Both unity and diversity are emphasized by the reference to the Trinity. God has modeled
His request for us."
(The Awesome Power of Shared Beliefs, Wagner, pg. 25)
"That they all may be one; as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John
Christ's Relation To The Church Is Put Alongside The Husbands Relation To His Wife.
This Is Called A Mystery. The Mysteries Are Clearly Spelled Out In Scripture As I Have
Presented Before. (1 Timothy 3:16; Ephesians 5:32; Romans 11:24-32; 1 Cor. 15:51,52)
Those That Have Arrogantly Claimed That Speaking Of Mysteries Means That One Cannot
Win An Argument, Haven't Read These Scriptures.
If God Irresistably Saves Some, Irresistably Damns Others, Then Why Shouldn't We By
Logical Extension Assume That We Should Make Irresistable Choices For Our Spouse. (Ephesians 5:32)
If It Is Unloving For Us To Do This To Our Spouses, How Is It Commendable For God?
We Can Only Define Personhood By Looking At The Triunity Of God.
You Take Away This Relationship Of The Persons In The Godhead, You Take Away A Personal
You Take Away The Loving Relatinship He Has Toward His Creatures, You Take Away A Personal
God And Give Us One That Is No Better Than Krishna, Who Stole Womens Clothes And Vishnu Who Destroys.
If You Take Away The Loving Relationship He Has Toward Us, You Make Him An Impersonal
God, No Better Than Pantheism.
There Is Nothing Personal Or Loving About A God That Predetermines That Most Are Going
To A fiery Hell.
"Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." (Person, Dictionary.com )
The Persons In The Godhead Are One In Substance, Though Distinct In Personhood, And
If In The Triunity, As The Calvinist Suggests Of Us, The Two Were Merely Involuntary Followers Of The One, Then We Wouldn't
Have Three Persons In One God.
"They followed Heraclitus in believing the primary substance to be fire and in worshiping
the Logos, which they identified with the energy, law, reason, and providence (divine guidance) found throughout nature.
The Stoics argued that nature was a system designed by the divinities and believed that humans should strive to live in accordance
with nature. The Stoic doctrine that each person is part of God and that all people form a universal family helped break down
national, social, and racial barriers and prepare the way for the spread of Christianity. The Stoic doctrine of natural law,
which makes human nature the standard for evaluating laws and social institutions, had an important influence on Roman and
later Western law."
Was This Logos Completely Unlike The Logos Of Later Christianity?
'a creation that was nothing like their philosophies taught'? Bob Wright
This Logos Of The Stoic Heraclitus And Other Greek Thinkers Results In Predestination.
Sure, Real Christianity Revealed The Person Behind The Process. Stoic And Taoist Philosophers
Believed In The Impersonal Process Of The Interaction Of Opposites Called Logos/Yin-Yang, While The Calvinist (Modern Zenos),
Claim To Believe In An Impersonal Person Behind The Process.
Zeno Was The Father Of Stoicism.
This Is An Oxymoron And Contrary To True Christianity. Impersonal Person?
The Apostle Paul Didn't Reject The Truth Of The Stoics When He Saw It, Simply Because
They Were Pantheistic, But Rather Gleaned The Truth That, 'We Are His Offspring' (Acts 17), Quoting The Stoics In What Was
Made 'Plain To Them.' (Romans 1), And Later Confirmed That They Got It Right When He Said, "Therefore since we are God's offspring..."
If That Isn't Establishing Common Ground Then Nothing At All Can Be Established." (Acts
For we are also his offspring--the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But,
as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense;
but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose--to teach a pure,
personal, spiritual Theism. (Probably during his quiet retreat at Tarsus. Acts 9:30 , revolving his special vocation to the
Gentiles he gave himself to the study of so much Greek literature as might be turned to Christian account in his future work.
Hence this and his other quotations from the Greek poets, 1 Corinthians 15:33 , Titus 1:12
Since We Know We Are God's Offspring, We Know This To Be Paul Agreeing With Aratus.
The Stoic Logos Is A Start In The Right Direction As A Process, As Both Stoics And
Calvinists Have Recognized, But Later Real Christianity Recognizes The Loving Person Involved In This Process.
Recognizing The Similarities Is Common Ground To Lead Into Greater Truth.
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to
win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To
those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the
law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak
I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (1 Cor. 9:22)
Now, Belief In Predestination Will Influence Ones View Of Evangelism Though Many Will
There Is No Reason For A Calvinist To Lovingly Reach Out To The Lost, If God Unlovingly
Picks Who To Save And Who To Damn.
"This has caused its followers to adopt a sort of apathy toward our fatalistic universe. This apathy, say the Stoics, is characterized as "accepting
the will of God", something very reminiscent of Christianity. Hence,
many make the association of Stoic fatalism with the Christian doctrine of predestination (e.g. the Augustinian-Calvinist
The Only Motivation I Have Seen For Calvinists To Say Anything With Any Fervor Is
If A Free Willer Is Nearby, Or To Prove That They Are Motivated, To The Free Willer.
Their Reasons Are That God Told Them To, But That Really Demonstrates How Gods Right
Commands Contradict Their Wrong Theology.
They Argue That The Free Willer Cannot Prove That There Are Not Prior Influences On
A Mans Choosing.
The Real Argument Should Go Like This, The Calvinist Cannot Demonstrate An Irresistable
Influence On Each Believer.
I've Witnessed Calvinists Speaking Or Hiding In Their Ivory Towers, Most Of Their Lives,
Rejecting Most Opportunties At Their Feet Or Their Door, Then Bemoaning All The Wayward Theologies (According To Them), That
Resulted Through Their Apathy.
This Is Why God Has Chosen The Foolish Of The World To Confound These Who Think Too
Highly Of Themselves. (1 Cor. 2)
Even The Zorastrian Magi Knew Enough Of The Truth To Know To Look For And Find The
Messiah. They Seemed To Be Putting More Effort Into Finding The Messiah Then Most Of The Jews Were.
I Wonder If The Jews Were Calvinists?
Of Course They Were, They Thought God Chose Them And No One Else.
Not To Mention The Time Involved In following This Star, Even With Herod Recognizing
That The Zorastrian Magi Knew Something That Would Affect Him.
God Wasn't Frightened To Use Their Limited Knowledge To Lead Them Into Higher Truth.
The Opponents Of A Common Ground, Might Say, That Pagans Contradict Each Other And
That Therefore Means To Reject What God 'Made Plain To Them.' (Romans 1)
That Is A Silly Argument, And One That Proposes Such Nonsense Ought To Apply That To
Calvinists and Non Calvinists Quote Historical Sources, Christian And Non Christian
To Prove Their Point And I Use Sources As Well To Not Only Prove My Point But To Show that Once One Resorts to Sources Outside
Scripture, They Can Expect Their Antagonists To Do So As Well.
Stoics And Calvinists Often Want To Remain In Their limited Understanding Of The Process.
Still, To Leave The Logos Only As Heraclitus A Stoic Defined It, Rather Than Seeing
The Loving Person In The Process, Would Result In Fatalism/Predestination.
An Impersonal God That Predetermines The Fate Of Others, Rather Than Enabling Them
To Choose For Themselves Is Not The Loving Triune God Of The Bible, But Has Made Us Mere Cogs In A Fatalistic Universe, Which
In Effect Is No Better Than The Fatalism Of The Stoics.
Whether This Logos Is Impersonal (Process), Or Impersonal (Person), The Logos Is Still
Impersonal And One Unloving Result Is Predestination.
This Is How The God Who Is Love Defines Love.
"It is not rude, it is not self-seeking" (1 Corinthians 13)
How Could The God Of Love, Who Eternally Preexisted In A Loving Relationship In The
Triunity, Then Rudely'Seek His Own' In Relation To His Creatures?
Did Any One Of The Persons Of The Triunity Ever Override The Will Of Another?
It Was Predetermined That Christ Give His Life, (Acts 2) But Still Christ Made A Choice
To Submit His Will To The Father In the Garden.
"23 This man was handed over to you
by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked
men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." (Acts 2)
To Say That The 'Set Purpose' Here Was Something The Father Irresistably Predetermined
Apart From The Assent Of His Equal Is To Make The Other Persons Less Than God, Non Persons Only Part Of The Divine Process.
"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet
not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:36)
Being A Person (eyw) Is To Have Ones Own Mind And Will Even If The Final Choice Is
To Willingly Submit Ones Will To Another.
Christs Actions Were Foreseen Therefore Predetermined.
If It Was Him That Predetermined His Actions Ahead Of time, Then He Would Have Said,
My Will Be Done.
If It Was God The Father That Irresistably Determined Christ's Fate, That Would Have
Diminished The Personhood Of The Second Person.
He Said, Nevertheless, Not As I Will, But Thy Will Be Done.
One Can Only Distinguish Between Theism And Pantheism When It Involves A Loving And
Willing Relationship Of At Least Two.
Personal Is Between Persons, And Impersonal Is Either One Predetermining Anothers Destiny
(Good Or Bad), Irregardless Of That Persons Will And Mind Or Both Sides Are Impersonal.
A Dictatorial Relationship Is Impersonal.
Philippians Says: "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made
in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross.' (Philippians 2; ASV)
We Are Told To Have This Same Attitude That Christ Did When He Willingly Gave Up His
If It Was Irresistably Predetermined (More Than Foreseen), Then The Will Of Christ
Spirit Unites, Soul Distinguishes.
Giving Examples Of Our Distinction From Things We Create Doesn't Completely Work When
Distinguishing Between Pantheism and Theism.
1) His Spirit Pervades All Things (omnipresence)
2) Christ (He-Person), Holds All Things Together. (Colossians 1:15-17)
3) We Mere Humans Don't Impart A Soul To That Which We Create.
Both Pantheism And Theism Recognize A Spatial Distinction Between This And That.
But Distinctions Only Really Appear When We Recognize The Soul In Things Or Our Soul
In Contrast To Inanimate Objects.
In Pantheism, God Is Everything And Everything Is God.
In Theism God Is Everywhere And Even Holds All Things together, But He Is Not Equally
Everywhere, And He (PERSONal Pronoun), Is Not Me (Personal Pronoun), Nor Does He Make Decisions For Me.
He Pervades All Things But Is Soulically Distinct From His Creation.
Remove That Soulish Distinction Either Through His Irresistable Acts On Others You
Have An Impersonal Process That Goes Contrary To The Triunity Of Scripture.
In Speaking Of Calvinism And Predestination:
"But Philip Melancthon believed that this doctrine did not differ greatly from the
fate of the Stoics: This appears from many of his writings, but more particularly in a certain letter which he addressed to
Gasper Peucer, and in which, among other things, he states : "Lælius writes to me and says, that the controversy respecting
the Stoical Fate is agitated with such uncommon fervour at Geneva, that one individual is cast into prison because he happened
to differ from Zeno. O unhappy times! When the doctrine of salvation is thus obscured by certain strange disputes!"
There Are Multitudes Of References On the Internet Equating The Predestination Of The
Stoics To Calvinism. All One Has To Do Is Look.
And Both The Predestination Of The Calvinist And The Stoic Are Related To An Impersonal
Presently I'm Debating A Tag Team Of Calvinists That Sometime Parrot Each Others Particular
I Call Them The Three Amigos.
Now At Times I Have Thought That Maybe They Are The Same Person, But Instead I Think
They Are Really Exhibiting The Same Kind Of Borgian Mentality Of Calvinism Which Presupposes That One Thinks For The
Others, While The Others Follow And Pat Each Other/Themselves On The Back.
They Refuse To Believe Myriads Of Proofs That Are Easily Accessible On The Internet,
But Refer To Works Written By Calvinist Thinkers Of The Past.
Not Forgetting To Mention That These Works May Take A Month Sabbatical To Effectively
Some People Read What Others Think, While Others Think For Themselves, And Only Use
Works To Verify What They Have Found In Scripture.
There Are Those That Are Good At Finding What Others Believe, While Others Set The
The Great Thinkers Of The Past Didn't Limit Themselves To What The So Called Greats
Thought But Thought For Themselves, Even Enduring The Persecution Of Fellow Christians.
Also Calvinists Attempting To Refute The Personhood Of Man, Doesn't Validate Theirs.
One That Dumbs And Waters Down Personhood, Including The Triunity To Support Predestination
Might See that Mentality Infecting Their Own Interactions.
Knowing The Makeup Of Man Helps In Our Quest For Biblical Personhood.
1 Thessalonians Shows The Trichotomy Of Man.
"23 And the very God of peace sanctify
you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Not Only Through The Definite Articles In The Greek Do We See the Three Parts Of Man,
But Also See The 'Souls' Distinction From 'The body' And 'The Spirit'.
Looking At The Hebrew Or Assuming That We Should Insert Hebrew Thought Or Language
In The NT, Is Unfounded, Especially Seeing That Greek Is A More Exact Language And the Apostle Paul Wasn't Always Speaking
Though Jesus And James Might Have Been More Inclined to Use It Than The Apostle Paul.
To Argue For Four Parts Of Man, Doesn't Make Four Completely Distinct Parts, And 'Strength'
Does Not A Part Make.
Mind Is A Part Of Soul/I
Rather Than Scripture Being Contradictory, It Actually Clarifies Itself.
Some May Want To Argue The Three Parts Of Man By Quoting Scripture That Presents Four
"29 and Jesus answered him -- `The first
of all the commands [is], Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one; 30 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of thy soul, and out of all thine understanding,
and out of all thy strength -- this [is] the first command." (Mark 12:30)
Here Christ May Be Quoting A Hebrew OT, Though The Greek Interlinear Has It In Greek.
So The Parts Of Man May Not Be Clear Here.
But Paul Does Make It Clear And In Greek. (1 Thess. 5)
But Once We Decide To Take The bible Literally And Let The Bible Clarify Itself, We
See That These Are Not Contradictions That The Literal Trichotomist Cannot Harmonize, They Are Clarifications.
If We Are Not To Make Any Distinctions Between The Immaterial Parts Of The Soul And
the Spirit, Then We Are Obligated To Then Show How, We Can Be Spiritually Saved When We Believe (John 3), But Then Need To
Receive The Engrafted Word Later, So As To Save Our Souls.
"21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness
and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1)
This Is The Difference Between Salvation And Sanctification.
Arguing That 'Renewing One's Mind Refutes The Trichotomy Of Man Doesn't Recognize That
The Mind Is Probably Part Of The Soul.
Not Making These Distinctions Results In Such Errors As Soul Sleep, Salvation Doesn't
Come Until The End, Purgatory, Maybe Even Calvinism.
From General To More Specific:
Why Is this Important?
"4 For he chose us in him before the
creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will." (Ephesians
Salvation= God The Fathers Predetermination (Ephesians 1)
Salvation= When Christ Died For All (2 Corinthians 5:14,15)
Salvation: When The Holy Spirit Draws (John 12)
Salvation = Salvation Of the Spirit. (John 3)
Sanctification = Salvation Of The Soul (James 1:21)
Resurrection = Salvation Of The Body. (1 Cor. 15:51,52)
These Are All Part Of The Personal Salvation Of The Individual.
Notice, 'In Love', Which Does Not Override Mans Will But Enables Man To Choose.
Does All Mean All Here, Of Course It Does, And 'Gods Will' Means That As Well.
God's Will Is That We Are Enabled To Choose God Or The Alternative And This Is Why
He Lovingly Delays His Judgment That Will Ultimately Grant Both Groups Their Will. (2 Peter 3)
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand
years, and a thousand years are like a day.
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping
his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to
It Doesn't Make Any Sense For The God Of Calvinism To Wait To Bring In More, If All
He Wants To Do Is Irresistably And Instantaneously Make It So.
So Predestination Rejects The Loving Nature Of The Logos And The Triune God And The
Trichotomous Nature Of Man From The Foreknowledge Of God To Resurrection Of Man.