Chris Comis

The blue-collar scholar. I'm a Protesting Catholic and a Christocratic Postie. “Gimme a penny for your thoughts; or I’ll give you a dollar to hear me holler."

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

@_matthewpearson Here’s the historical underlying cause for “Reformed” Baptist shame:
“My baptism, my choice!” —> “My salvation, my choice!” —> “My body, my choice!” —> “My gender, my choice!”

The Failure of the American Baptist Culture: Christianity and Civilization
https://t.co/5BuFpabZUV

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

I call BS on this guy’s attempts at making excuses for Nolan’s forthcoming film version of the classic tale “Odyssey.” His backlash against the backlash also misses the point of why there’s so much backlash against this filmic version of this ancient epic in the first place.

And this guy’s biggest mistake is in assuming that it was Nolan’s job to take this ancient tale, and make it “reconnect” and make it as “relevant” with our modern day humanity as possible. Nope. Nolan’s job was to take modern day humanity, and transport us into an ancient cosmos and time and culture, and basically force us all to reckon with the fact that we know so little about our modern day humanity because we know and appreciate so little about OUR ancient humanity. We’re so terribly provincial and arrogant in our “modern humanity” as well. We care WAY TOO MUCH about our modern humanity. And now we got another film trying to tell us, straight to our faces, that modern humanity is really quite awesome, and here’s another movie to prove it! So as far as I can tell at this point, Nolan has managed to strike out on all these standards for making a truly memorable and impactful film adaptation of the Odyssey.

Nolan had the perfect opportunity here to rebuke “modern humanity” for all our hubris and arrogance; but no, he took the “path of least resistance on this film,” and so now it looks like I’m gonna have to sit through another two-plus hours of filmic, Holly-no-good slop, just to endure another round of filmic trash.

Movies that depict ancient tales like the Odyssey should be trying to get us away from ourselves as much as possible, both individually and collectively, rather than using this as an opportunity to reflect our “modern human greatness” back to ourselves. These kinds of movies should be more of a “window” than a “mirror.” Mirrors are for vain and arrogant fools, but windows are for explorers and real risk-takers.

Backlash against Christopher Nolan's 'Odyssey' misses the point https://t.co/COe1sWgeCs

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

It’s called the work of the Holy Spirit. And His work is done in secret, in the deepest recesses of the human soul, and in such a way that it is unpredictable, just like the movement of the wind (cf. John 3). We hear the sound of the blowing of the Spirit of God through the audible preaching/teaching of the very words of God, but we do not know where He comes from or where He goes. We only know He comes from the Father AND the Son, and that His work is to “seal” in men’s hearts and minds the very words of God — but as to the “when exactly” and “how exactly” and “where exactly” the Spirit of God chooses to work, this is a transrational mystery (not irrational). And according to the young but wise Elihu in the book of Job, “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life . . . for God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds, then He opens the ears of men and terrifies them with warnings, that He may turn man aside from his deed and conceal pride from a man; He keeps back his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword” (Job 33:4-18).

So quit being an Arminian rationalist about the secret and mysterious works of the Spirit of God. The Spirit’s work is not limited to only that which we fallen creatures can understand and comprehend. His work is not even limited to our self-conscious decisions we make about the Christ. These are just the fruit of the matter, not the root of the matter.

[Soteriology101 🩸 @Soteriology101]

“MANY ARE CALLED, FEW ARE ELECT” -Jesus

Who are “the called” in that parable?

Everyone

Who are “the elect” in that parable?

Those who came in response to the King’s call clothed in the right wedding garments (Christ)

If the king is somehow secretly controlling how those who are called respond to his calling, this parable makes absolutely no rational sense.

Jesus makes sense.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

It’s called the work of the Holy Spirit. And His work is done in secret, in the deepest recesses of the human soul, and in such a way that it is unpredictable, just like the movement of the wind (cf. John 3). We hear the sound of the blowing of the Spirit of God through the audible preaching/teaching of the very words of God, but we do not know where He comes from or where He goes. We only know He comes from the Father AND the Son, and that His work is to “seal” in men’s hearts and minds the very words of God — but as to the “when exactly” and “how exactly” and “where exactly” the Spirit of God chooses to work, this is a transrational mystery (not irrational). And according to the young but wise Elihu in the book of Job, “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life . . . for God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds, then He opens the ears of men and terrifies them with warnings, that He may turn man aside from his deed and conceal pride from a man; He keeps back his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword” (Job 33:4-18).

So quit being an Arminian rationalist about the secret and mysterious works of the Spirit of God. The Spirit’s work is not limited to only that which we fallen creatures can understand and comprehend. His work is not even limited to our self-conscious decisions we make about the Christ. These are just the fruit of the matter, not the root of the matter.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

Which is just one more reason why there needs to be some kind of functional and pragmatic and limited form of ecclesiocracy. The Church should never have FULL jurisdiction over the state, nor should the earthly and visible and militant Church have unlimited jurisdiction over any given sovereign state. But neither is there really such a thing as the TOTAL separation of Church and state. Every Church and every state must learn how to cooperate together under the Law of God as their final authority in all things political and earthly. And these must learn to do so as distinct but inseparable institutions of sovereign authority. Which means these are also essentially united but non-confusable institutions of sovereign authority. Which means their relative spheres of authority and jurisdiction will overlap at times, and that there will be areas of "authority ad extra" and not just "authority ad intra," even with regards to their distinct areas of jurisdiction.

And one of the biggest problems that I see with the doctrine of the separation of Church and state throughout history is that this always tends towards a final exaltation of the authority of the state at the expense of the Church, or a final marginalization of the Church altogether. As far as I'm aware, there's no instance where the separation of Church and state has caused the Church to have unlimited power and authority over the state, but the opposite problem tends to be the trajectory here. Which is why I commonly refer to the doctrine of the "separation of Church and state" as just another form of statist tyranny. It's basically a bunch of statists trying to get rid of the visible and institutional Church, so that they can grab all the power for they bad little selves.

But anyways, there has to be some form of lawful ecclesiocracy. One in which the Church is allowed to have some kind of legal authority over the state in matters pertaining to the affairs of the state, and not just over the "spiritual conditions" of the state. But the state would have legal recourse to the Law of God as well, for "doctrine, for rebuking, for healing, and for training/discipling in righteousness." And so it is not like the Church would have unconditional and absolute authority over the state even in these areas of spiritual growth. There would need to be a much more symbiotic relationship between the Church and the state. Kinda like the relationship of mutual love and deference that the Persons of the Trinity have for each other.

[Peter Leithart @PLeithart]

Pierre Manent:

"The Church considers itself not as an association among others in an all-encompassing society whose 'pluralism' the State guarantees and preserves, but as a complete society that has its principle in itself and whose goal is infinitely more important than that of any other society – it considers itself the res publica perfecta whose independence is not simply functional but ontological, and that thus could not be subordinated to any other authority or institution, including the secular State.

"In this sense, the subordination of the Church to the sovereign State is an appearance to which the Church consents or is forced to consent, but that obscures its true nature."

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

Which is just one more reason why there needs to be some kind of functional and pragmatic and limited form of ecclesiocracy. The Church should never have FULL jurisdiction over the state, nor should the earthly and visible and militant Church have unlimited jurisdiction over any given sovereign state. But neither is there really such a thing as the TOTAL separation of Church and state. Every Church and every state must learn how to cooperate together under the Law of God as their final authority in all things political and earthly. And these must learn to do so as distinct but inseparable institutions of sovereign authority. Which means these are also essentially united but non-confusable institutions of sovereign authority. Which means their relative spheres of authority and jurisdiction will overlap at times, and that there will be areas of "authority ad extra" and not just "authority ad intra," even with regards to their distinct areas of jurisdiction.

And one of the biggest problems that I see with the doctrine of the separation of Church and state throughout history is that this always tends towards a final exaltation of the authority of the state at the expense of the Church, or a final marginalization of the Church altogether. As far as I'm aware, there's no instance where the separation of Church and state has caused the Church to have unlimited power and authority over the state, but the opposite problem tends to be the trajectory here. Which is why I commonly refer to the doctrine of the "separation of Church and state" as just another form of statist tyranny. It's basically a bunch of statists trying to get rid of the visible and institutional Church, so that they can grab all the power for they bad little selves.

But anyways, there has to be some form of lawful ecclesiocracy. One in which the Church is allowed to have some kind of legal authority over the state in matters pertaining to the affairs of the state, and not just over the "spiritual conditions" of the state. But the state would have legal recourse to the Law of God as well, for "doctrine, for rebuking, for healing, and for training/discipling in righteousness." And so it is not like the Church would have unconditional and absolute authority over the state even in these areas of spiritual growth. There would need to be a much more symbiotic relationship between the Church and the state. Kinda like the relationship of mutual love and deference that the Persons of the Trinity have for each other.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

The other mistake he makes here is that when Calvinists say that "all kinds of men will be saved," this should not be reduced to "only a few kinds of men will be saved." The "all without distinction" approach does not mean "only a few kinds without distinction." It means ALL KINDS WITHOUT DISTINCTION. And yes, this also has application to ALL KINDS WITHOUT EXCEPTION as well; but what we should not do, as almost every Arminian I've ever read on this point tries to do, which is attempt to reduce ALL KINDS WITHOUT EXCEPTION to every single individual without qualification. Arminians are notorious for trying to reduce these "all" passages in the NT to mean "each and every individual within a given class/kind of individuals, and without qualification." But there are plenty of qualifications/exceptions to be made. For example, while all kinds of men will be saved, there are those individual men who will not be saved. And regardless of WHY one thinks these individual men will not be saved, unless you are an unqualified individual soteric universalist, then you too should admit that not all adamites will be saved. Either most (or some, depending on the particular eschatological view one holds to), will end up in Hell forever. And so not all adamites, AS INDIVIDUAL ADAMITES, will be saved. But ALL KINDS of adamites will be saved. The red kind, the blue kind, the black kind, the white kind, the male and the female kinds, etc.

All kinds of adamites will be saved, even though not all adamites are new adamites (i.e., those who are united to the new Adam in a new kind of way -- the way of salvation!).

[Soteriology101 🩸 @Soteriology101]

Folks, even if 1 Tim 2 and similar passages refer to all kinds of people, it doesn’t prove these passages don’t also include all without exception. It certainly doesn’t imply a smaller portion of all types of people, as the Calvinistic system would require. When the Scriptures include all nations or all classes of people, the natural reading is exhaustive, including all without exception.

For instance, if a new sheriff was elected because the rich class was not being held accountable to the law and said, “Now that I’m the sheriff, all people will be accountable to the law!” the clear meaning is to include all people of all classes, not a few of all classes. Similarly, when Scripture includes other classes or nations, it does so exhaustively, not a few of all sorts.

The burden is on the Calvinist to demonstrate how these passages mean God only desires the salvation of a few of all kinds of people, as it’s simply not the natural reading. This is shown by the fact that many Calvinists take an alternative view (e.g., God wills the salvation of all in one sense but not another: decretive vs. prescriptive will).

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

The other mistake he makes here is that when Calvinists say that "all kinds of men will be saved," this should not be reduced to "only a few kinds of men will be saved." The "all without distinction" approach does not mean "only a few kinds without distinction." It means ALL KINDS WITHOUT DISTINCTION. And yes, this also has application to ALL KINDS WITHOUT EXCEPTION as well; but what we should not do, as almost every Arminian I've ever read on this point tries to do, which is attempt to reduce ALL KINDS WITHOUT EXCEPTION to every single individual without qualification. Arminians are notorious for trying to reduce these "all" passages in the NT to mean "each and every individual within a given class/kind of individuals, and without qualification." But there are plenty of qualifications/exceptions to be made. For example, while all kinds of men will be saved, there are those individual men who will not be saved. And regardless of WHY one thinks these individual men will not be saved, unless you are an unqualified individual soteric universalist, then you too should admit that not all adamites will be saved. Either most (or some, depending on the particular eschatological view one holds to), will end up in Hell forever. And so not all adamites, AS INDIVIDUAL ADAMITES, will be saved. But ALL KINDS of adamites will be saved. The red kind, the blue kind, the black kind, the white kind, the male and the female kinds, etc.

All kinds of adamites will be saved, even though not all adamites are new adamites (i.e., those who are united to the new Adam in a new kind of way -- the way of salvation!).

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

He is reducing the “all without distinction” to the “all without exception.” And this exegetical tactic has been used for centuries by Arminians to try and explain these passages. This is also why Arminianism fails fundamentally as a system of theology: its driving assumption is that the “all” passages in the NT must mean “all without exception.” And this leads inexorably to a kind of rigid and unforgiving individualism with regard to what these passages are getting at.

Paul is not referring to each and every individual, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, by these “all” references. He is rather referring to individuals within certain covenantal relationships. He is referring ultimately to the different kinds of covenantal relationships that exist between different kinds of individuals.

But this guy also just assumes that the “all without distinction” approach must only refer to a “few” kinds of members within any given set. But this is false, too. The “all without distinction” refers to ALL the different kinds of relationships within a given set. And it also refers to ALL the individual members within a given set as well, but it’s qualifying this reference to individual members by focusing in on their fundamental relationships.

[Soteriology101 🩸 @Soteriology101]

No, I’m demonstrating how it can be in reference to all without distinction while still implicitly meaning all without exception as well, as the analogy illustrates. The burden is on you to demonstrate how the implicit natural reading isn’t including all without exception but only a few of all kinds because that’s not the natural reading of the text.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

And what I just spent an entire post trying to point out to you is that the “all without exception” is being qualified by the “all without distinction.” The “all without distinction” is the main point of these passages, not the “all without exception.” And this bears itself out based on broader contextual clues as well, and not simply based on the “rules of semantics” or the “rules of proper inference.” (Just needed to point this out as well.) Paul is addressing throughout ALL his letters the new covenantal realities that exist now for “all without distinction” in Christ Jesus.

But even here, Paul knew that some would be tempted to think that his “all without distinction” must be reducible to an “all without exception” (just as many Arminians make this mistake today!). So he tells us in Rom 9:6 that “not all Israel is Israel.” Even though he will go on to tell us in chapter 11 that “all Israel will be saved.” So what do we do with this? Well, if we try and take the “all without exception” approach to the salvation of Israel (or to the salvation of each and every member of Israel), then we will end up calling Paul a liar here. But if we take the “all without distinction” approach, then everything Paul tells us in these passages makes much better sense. And not only so, but we can better see now how it is the case that both “all Israel will be saved,” and that “not all Israel is Israel.”

And the same goes for the salvation of all adamites: “all adamites will be saved” and “not all adamites are adamites.”

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

He’s confusing “all without exception” with “all without distinction.” These two approaches to the universal quantifier “all” must be kept distinct, and not just for logical purposes, but also for theological and metaphysical purposes as well.

And every intermediate logic textbook will make this distinction very clear. In fact, many beginning text books in logic will make this clear: “All X without exception” does not have the same referential and connotational status as does “All X without distinction.” The “without exception” version only refers to EACH AND EVERY member within a given set. No exceptions and no qualifications! It is used, to put it bluntly, to only refer to individual members of a set of things, and that is it! But the “without distinction” version does not SIMPLY refer to each and every member of a set of things, but is MORE IMPORTANTLY seeking to indicate that no distinction is being made BETWEEN each and every member of a given set of things. This version is referring to basic (covenantal) relationships between individual members within a given set of things. So while the “without exception” is pointing to each and every member of a given set, simpliciter; the “without distinction” version is fulfilling a much more important role by pointing to the KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS that exists between each and every member of a set of things. Thus, “without exception” —> unqualified individualism; “without distinction” —> qualified corporate covenantalism.

So, for example, when Paul is talking about “all Israel” or “all men” in his epistles, he’s not giving us a “blanket statement” (or better, a “blanket predication”) about each and every INDIVIDUAL person who has ever been “of Israel,” or who has ever been “of mankind.” He’s not using “all without exception” in these passages. But he is using “all without distinction” in these passages. He’s telling us something fundamentally important about the fact that “all kinds of Israel will be saved,” or that “all kinds of adamites will be saved.” And that these will be saved without the fundamental distinctions that existed between the different kinds of “Israel” and “adamites” that existed under the older covenant economy. Now that all the old covenant “stoicheia” has been removed forever in Christ, the fundamental relationships between the different kinds of Israel, or between the different kinds of adamites, has been restored in Christ. These are all now “one in Christ Jesus.” Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male or female: ALL these different kinds of adamites are one in Christ Jesus now. A new relationship has been established between these different kinds of adamites in the New Adam. And the same goes for the new Israel as well.

Old covenant Israel was constantly falling apart due to rebellion or apostasy, or even due to the fundamental “stoicheia” that God Himself had ordained and put in place that established “covenant markers” that distinguished one kind of Israel from another kind. This even included physical boundary markers between one tribe and another tribe. But these too have been done away with in the new Israelite, in the new Abraham and Isaac Himself, in the Christ. So now there’s neither “Judah” nor “Naphtali,” no “southern kingdom” nor “northern kingdom,” but all kinds of Israel are now one Israel in Christ Jesus.

But we also shouldn’t confuse the fact that because we are all one in Christ, that this means all the different KINDS of Israel or all the different KINDS of adamites have been obliterated or annihilated. These different kinds still exist, but the basic relationships between these different kinds has been redeemed and restored in Christ, thus creating one new Adamite-Israel. Or as some like to put it, a whole new kind of humanity.

[Soteriology101 🩸 @Soteriology101]

Folks, even if 1 Tim 2 and similar passages refer to all kinds of people, it doesn’t prove these passages don’t also include all without exception. It certainly doesn’t imply a smaller portion of all types of people, as the Calvinistic system would require. When the Scriptures include all nations or all classes of people, the natural reading is exhaustive, including all without exception.

For instance, if a new sheriff was elected because the rich class was not being held accountable to the law and said, “Now that I’m the sheriff, all people will be accountable to the law!” the clear meaning is to include all people of all classes, not a few of all classes. Similarly, when Scripture includes other classes or nations, it does so exhaustively, not a few of all sorts.

The burden is on the Calvinist to demonstrate how these passages mean God only desires the salvation of a few of all kinds of people, as it’s simply not the natural reading. This is shown by the fact that many Calvinists take an alternative view (e.g., God wills the salvation of all in one sense but not another: decretive vs. prescriptive will).

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

You’re confusing “all without exception” with “all without distinction.” These two approaches to the universal quantifier “all” must be kept distinct, and not just for logical purposes, but also for theological and metaphysical purposes as well.

And every intermediate logic textbook will make this distinction very clear. In fact, many beginning text books in logic will make this clear: “All X without exception” does not have the same referential and connotational status as does “All X without distinction.” The “without exception” version only refers to EACH AND EVERY member within a given set. No exceptions and no qualifications! It is used, to put it bluntly, to only refer to individual members of a set of things, and that is it! But the “without distinction” version does not SIMPLY refer to each and every member of a set of things, but is MORE IMPORTANTLY seeking to indicate that no distinction is being made BETWEEN each and every member of a given set of things. This version is referring to basic (covenantal) relationships between individual members within a given set of things. So while the “without exception” is pointing to each and every member of a given set, simpliciter; the “without distinction” version is fulfilling a much more important role by pointing to the KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS that exists between each and every member of a set of things. Thus, “without exception” —> unqualified individualism; “without distinction” —> qualified corporate covenantalism.

So, for example, when Paul is talking about “all Israel” or “all men” in his epistles, he’s not giving us a “blanket statement” (or better, a “blanket predication”) about each and every INDIVIDUAL person who has ever been “of Israel,” or who has ever been “of mankind.” He’s not using “all without exception” in these passages. But he is using “all without distinction” in these passages. He’s telling us something fundamentally important about the fact that “all kinds of Israel will be saved,” or that “all kinds of adamites will be saved.” And that these will be saved without the fundamental distinctions that existed between the different kinds of “Israel” and “adamites” that existed under the older covenant economy. Now that all the old covenant “stoicheia” has been removed forever in Christ, the fundamental relationships between the different kinds of Israel, or between the different kinds of adamites, has been restored in Christ. These are all now “one in Christ Jesus.” Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male or female: ALL these different kinds of adamites are one in Christ Jesus now. A new relationship has been established between these different kinds of adamites in the New Adam. And the same goes for the new Israel as well.

Old covenant Israel was constantly falling apart due to rebellion or apostasy, or even due to the fundamental “stoicheia” that God Himself had ordained and put in place that established “covenant markers” that distinguished one kind of Israel from another kind. This even included physical boundary markers between one tribe and another tribe. But these too have been done away with in the new Israelite, in the new Abraham and Isaac Himself, in the Christ. So now there’s neither “Judah” nor “Naphtali,” no “southern kingdom” nor “northern kingdom,” but all kinds of Israel are now one Israel in Christ Jesus.

But we also shouldn’t confuse the fact that because we are all one in Christ, that this means all the different KINDS of Israel or all the different KINDS of adamites have been obliterated or annihilated. These different kinds still exist, but the basic relationships between these different kinds has been redeemed and restored in Christ, thus creating one new Adamite-Israel. Or as some like to put it, a whole new kind of humanity.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

I don't THINK science will ever be able to prove the age of the earth, one way or another, "young" earth or "old" earth. Maybe it will, but I doubt it. We just lack the scientific tools and training to be able to calculate, with any kind of accuracy, the astronomical and historical age of the universe. And there are way too many variables involved that can throw us off either way. And time is a tricky enough concept by itself to grasp, now add into this crazy mix issues concerning relativity and phenomenology, and I think it's beyond our capacity as finite and fallen creatures to finally nail this down from a purely scientific standpoint.

I think the better argument for a "young" earth comes from the liturgical nature of the cosmos, and from the liturgical sequence of events that took place at the beginning, along with all the liturgical sequencing that occurred after the creation. God didn't have to create in six days, and then rest on the seventh. And I'm sure He also knew that humans were going to have a really tough time trying to figure out some day just how "young/old" the universe really is, simply by investigating it through scientific means. So He revealed it to us that He created in six sequential days, so that we could rest assured that the cosmos has a fixed liturgical order, and is not liturgically chaotic in any sense.

So I think the best argument for the "age" of the universe is a liturgical one, not necessarily a scientific one. A cosmic and a historico-liturgical argument. And we know God loves liturgical processes, too. Way more than He loves abstract and philosophical, or even scientific theories about time.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that God's commands do not presuppose ability NOR inability on our part, but simply tell us what God demands of us as His creatures? And that our total inability to obey God's perfect Law does not come directly from God's commands of us, but from our own sinful hearts. This is exactly how Paul puts this dilemma in Romans 7. The holy, righteous, and just Law of God is not at fault for our breaking His commands. Our sinful hearts are at fault for this, and this is exactly why God can justly punish us for our sins. His Law doesn't make us sin, it simply points out all the ways in which we do sin.

But also, why is it so hard for you to believe that God must also give us the ability to obey His very commands? And that we have no autonomous ability, within ourselves, to obey God. Not even the original Adam had an autonomous ability to obey God, in and of himself, in his unfallen estate. Even the unfallen Adam would've praised God for blessing him with the ability to obey God's original commands, had he actually gone on to obey God. And same goes for all those holy angels who never fell from grace. It's not like these unfallen angels are praising their own autonomous efforts at keeping themselves from falling from grace. And if they were to start praising themselves for keeping covenant with God, this would be their downfall.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

But there are compromises on both sides of the "Genesis aisle" WITHIN the Church, Dr. Ham. It's not just the OEC and Theistic Evolutionists who've made compromises over the years. YECers have done so, too. It's just that the compromises the YECers have made over the years are not as obvious to most folks within the modern American evangelical and fundamentalist tribes. These tend to get overlooked and ignored by these same American evangelicals and fundies. And because these compromises are not the same compromises made by those on the other side of the aisle, then YECers tend to just dismiss their own compromises as "unimportant" or as "impractical" concerns.

But the compromises of the modern YEC movement are also legion. I'm talking about how the YEC movement has had a long history of assuming that science gives us "raw data" that scientists can then interpret with pure objectivity; or that science is a "neutral enterprise" that both believers and non-believers can COOPERATE together within, in order to come to some kind of common scientific consensus about the truths of our universe; or that presuppostional differences between atheists and Christians don't really matter, and that only the "scientific facts" really matter; or that certain theological and historico-redemptive commitments by certain Christians don't really matter when it comes to general YEC commitments; or that there are no liturgical and sacramental and typological and symbolical realities at work in the OG creation account, or if there are any, then these are marginalized to a greater extent than not; Etc.

But even these concerns about the history and current status of the YEC movement just scratch the surface as well. There are plenty more concerns, and these concerns come from within the broader YEC camp, too!

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

But this has been a problem in the American church for some time now. American Christianity has always struggled with affirming on the one hand, "All Scripture is God breathed-out," with what this same verse tells us on the other hand, "AND is useful/profitable for teaching, rebuking, healing, and training in righteousness."

I mean, whole evangelical tribes within the American church scene will say with their lips, "All Scripture is fully inspired by God, and therefore is inerrant and infallible," blah . . . blah . . . blah; but then, turn right around and have absolutely no idea how useful and practically profitable all these same passages are as well. And 1 Tim 2:12 is just the tip of the modern evangelical iceberg here. Which just goes to show that unless and until we know how useful/profitable ALL Scripture is for us here in the new covenant Church, and for this new covenant cosmos we are living in now, then all we're doing is giving lip service to the words of God. And this includes the usefulness/profitableness of ALL the revealed words of God, and not just the ones that we like to cherry-pick out of the Bible on any given Sunday for a sermon series.

Sola Scriptura means absolutely nothing without Tota Scriptura. And for all useful/practical ramifications of the same, neither of these means anything without the Church being the "pillar and support" of this same Truth to the watching world. If the Church can't show the watching world how useful ALL of the Scriptures are for "teaching, rebuking, healing, and training in righteousness," then why should they even care to listen to us when it comes to passages like 1 Tim 2:12?

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

Yes, of course they can, and they will just so long as these institutions are run by atheists and humanists and whatever else opposes itself to the Christ and His earthly Kingdom. This should not be too surprising to us Christians, but it continues to be a huge surprise for some Christians, simply because these fail to recognize that EVERY earthly institution is fundamentally for the Christ and His Kingdom on earth, or it is against the same.

So large academic institutions are gonna act just like the institutional Church acts (or should act!) here on earth. There are going to be religious test clauses, strict adherence to current dogma, examinations over orthodoxy versus heterodoxy, and even excommunications for all those who can't seem to get themselves in line with the status quo of whichever academic institution they want to teach at.

These are inescapable realities for EVERY institution here on earth.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

It means that our choice of God is ultimately grounded in God's choice of Christ, and of our union in Him. We are predestined for salvation IN Christ, and not simply by some "raw power of predestination" by God apart from Christ.

Predestination does not mean individuals cannot make any choices whatsoever; it simply means that we MUST make a choice. And so we will either choose for Christ or against Christ. And if we choose against Christ, then we are also choosing against ourselves for all eternity. Hell is the eternal choice to hate God and His Christ.

But also, while there is a distinction made in the Bible between corporate/national election and individual election, there is no ultimate separation between these two distinct realities of predestination. And so election is not merely corporate or individual, it is always a both/and; and this is the case whether we are talking about those corporate bodies and individuals who are predestined for eternal salvation, or for eternal damnation.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

Non-Denominational just means you’ve got a local denomination (disguised as a local church) with less accountability, less oversight, less wisdom, and way less structure to get stuff done over multiple generations. In reality, there’s no such thing as non-denominational. There’s just a bazillion little denominations all consisting of exactly one local church. And the harder local denominations try and be “non-denominational,” the more they end up becoming uber-denominational. It never fails.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

It really doesn’t matter how you word it, God causes it either way. Full stop. We can say He causes it by allowing it, or that He allows it by causing it. Now you’re just playing word games and semantic gymnastics.

God’s causal activity is far above our ability to even fully comprehend. He can cause things to happen in a potentially infinite number of ways, and the two ways you mentioned are just two of these ways.

[Chris Comis @ChristianJComis]

Indeed. You keep believing it your way, and I'll keep believing it God's way. Deal?🤣

At the very least, God allowing something to take place is not non-causal, either. So you're wrong on both counts.

But I understand that your Arminianisms are keeping you from believing the plain teachings of the Scriptures, especially in passages like Isa 45:7. It is plain as day that God causes evil in this world. This would include Satanic evils and moral evils, and not just "natural evils."