Benjamin

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

I was listening to Crash Test Dummies yesterday.

FIVE IRON FRENZY!!!

I was listening to them this morning in the car on the way to work. Love those guys.

Plum...? I liked her early stuff ('send angels' is still great) and used her lullabies album when my girls were little. Jennifer Knapp isn't bad either.

I also liked Jars of Clay's first few albums, and OC Supertones, and... look, just about anyone who was awesome in the 90s in the Christian music scene.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@WonderWomaNinja ...but were you on the DC Talk / Newsboys train?
That's been a rough ride in 2025-6.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@WonderWomaNinja I was more of a Boyz II Men / Mariah Carey fan in the 90s.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@UpTambourine and here I thought your biologically inherited last name was "Tambourine Player".

So disappointed.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@TracyWelborn6 @Toneskeee I'm sorry to hear that. Is there something I can pray for?

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@SeattleFanGZ @zachkruse2 James Harden went 0-17 from 3 in the last game of the season and had 14 turnovers.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@zachkruse2 60's Wilt Chamberlain is the cheat code.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

I wasn't claiming that you were - I did read your earlier post. The point that I was making is that Calvinism uses terms like "elect" in a way that the Bible doesn't.

I am not Calvinist either.
I do hold that election and predestination are Biblical.
I do NOT hold that Calvinst definitions of election and predestination are Biblical.

These things are often conflated - and it's not even just an online issue. People say "oh, Calvinists believe in predestination and election. I don't".

That's actually not an option left open to us. The Bible clearly talks about election. It clearly talks about predestination.

The task for the non-Calvinist is to look at the Scriptures and see "what does the Bible actually say about these things?". It's not "is election true?", it's "what is Biblical election, REALLY?".

They're very different answers and positions.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@kendallbaker It would be nice to be able to exclude decades. I mean, I know all the big names from the 60s, but I wasn't born until the 80s and didn't watch basketball until the 90s.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@TracyWelborn6 @Toneskeee No... what you've said isn't unclear or philosophical. But that's also not Calvinism's definition of 'election'.

You've narrowed it considerably.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@TracyWelborn6 @Toneskeee Neither election nor predestination are unique to Calvinism.

Both terms are very clearly Biblical.
What isn't Biblical is the Calvinist framing of what those terms mean. That is derived from philosophical assertions rather than Biblical usage.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@WonderWomaNinja Step 1) install the app
Step 2) use the app
Step 3) delete the app. Enjoy the silence. Maybe have a coffee, or go for a walk. Get some sunshine!

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

That's one of the major issues with Calvinists (not necessarily Calvinism): semantic collapse.

It's why they ask questions like: "if Jesus died for everybody, why isn't everybody saved?".

Atonement is not salvation, because cleanliness was never the criteria.

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."

Christ is the glory of God, and He is the criteria. Salvation depends upon you looking like Him. Atonement is just one step in that process.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@oldyzach *gather.

GATHER your party.
Good grief, man. They're not the Avengers.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

@OligarchOpoly @kevinmyoung Fine if that's your position.
That is not the Biblical position - so let's be clear about that.

On "we can only seek to understand, listen to each other, and be kind to each other", we agree. I haven't advocated otherwise, just to be clear on that, too.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

You're making assumptions here again.
You know nothing about me but you've already decided that I have "not had significant, honest and meaningful discussions with" LGBTQAI+ people "AS EQUALS".

Do you recognise that isn't a reasonable position? Again, you know literally nothing about me. Why would you conclude that without having "significant, honest and meaningful discussions" with me?

Aren't you doing quite literally exactly what you're calling "hubris"?

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

No, what I'm telling you is that your position is inferred.
The position I'm stating is explicitly in the text.

Those are different ways of viewing a text.
That doesn't actually mean that your view is wrong (there are many views on what the Bible says that are inferences and deeply justified), but it does mean that you have an additional burden of proof.

[Benjamin @Benjamin_01X]

..."my understanding is perfect" was never the claim.
But there is some distance between "my understanding is perfect" and "language actually means something, so I *can* know what this says", and that's where I land.

You are, however, demonstrating exactly the problem you're claiming exists - very nicely.
"I interpret it to mean..." isn't the criteria here. The criteria is "what does the text actually say?".

The text does not say what you're claiming.
It's simply not there. If you want to add that layer, fine - but you have to recognise that you're now living in inference, not in textual assertions.

One is far more stable than the other.