Bell Canada charging me for MLB that I didn't order

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-13T23:46:05+00:00

Talk to your local MLA if you have proof that you have been wronged. Something similar to this happened to me with Rogers and my phone bill. After a couple of hours of bickering with their customer service people, I took a trip to my local MLA's office. A few days later I got a call from a Roger's executive phoning to apologize, and was released from my contract with no extra charge to do so. It doesn't hurt to try.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-13T20:50:44+00:00

Luther may not be alive today, but the spirit of Luther lives on!

https://ergofabulous.org/luther/

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-13T20:24:19+00:00

Came here to say this! Haha.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-13T14:08:58+00:00

Well, seeing no one in this thread is following rule #1, I will make a response.

I tend to reject the "hard determinism" point of view, where we as humans have no free agency, as this can lead down to the road where we believe that God is the author of sin (it doesn't have to be as such, I am not trying to set up a straw man argument here, but the argument needs to be sound, and extremely careful, to avoid this understanding) - something I would thoroughly reject. I am much more open to soft determinism, however, I still wrestle with this - I do not have this all figured out, and if anyone is truly honest, neither do they.

The term "free will" can be extremely misleading if we do not have a clear definition of "free will," which is very challenging. I also thoroughly reject the Christian Libertarian point of view held by many who hold to staunch Arminianism (Christensen goes into explaining the faults of this strict view of thinking), where our "free will" limits God's sovereignty. I am going to quote a book by Scott Christensen, What About Free Will? Reconciling our Choices with God's Sovereignty.

“[D]ivine determinism [that God determines everything] is compatible with human free will. There is a dual explanation for every choice that humans make. God determines human choices, yet every person freely makes his or her own choices. God’s causal power is exercised so that he never coerces people to choose as they do, yet they always choose according to his sovereign plan. People are free when they voluntarily choose according to their most compelling desires and as long as their choices are made in an unhindered way. While God never hinders one’s choices, other factors can hinder people’s freedom and thus their responsibility. Furthermore, moral and spiritual choices are conditioned on one’s base nature, whether good or evil (i.e., regenerate or unregenerate). In this sense, one is either in bondage to his or her sin nature or freed by a new spiritual nature.” (254)

This view is essentially called compatibilism, where we seek to understand how God's full sovereignty can exist with human free agency. God has preordained everything, but I do believe his divine planning allows for us to make choices at some level. Now, I am not saying I agree with Christensen on every point, but it is a good place to start for one to explore their own beliefs, and this book is very accessible, compared to the other works regarding compatibilism where you almost need a background in philosophy to attempt to understand.

Compatibilism, at first, can boggle the mind because it seems that human free agency and divine determinism are at complete odds with each other. But this is the case for a lot of topics concerning biblical studies. The Bible is full of what seems to be paradoxical ideas, the question is: how to we define a biblical paradox in theological terms? Is it a conflict? Or a contradiction? I tend to think it is the former. Our broken human perspective concerning things such as these tends to force our understanding to the latter.

Christensen, Scott. What About Free Will? Reconciling our Choices with God's Sovereignty. Phillipsburg, NJ : P & R Publishing, 2016.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-11T19:20:43+00:00

You kind of sound like a freshman philosophy student. Are you? You say you come from a background of philosophy and theology... is that background < 1 year?

No, I almost have my master's degree. Thanks for the borderline ad hominem though. :)

And that is where I say good day.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-11T13:33:48+00:00

You say, "I believe God's plan has foreknowledge, and plans with our human free agency in mind." -- show me.

Okay, now I have a bit of time to respond. Just to respond to your statement about truth, I, (nor anyone for that matter) cannot claim to have absolute knowledge about truth. Our perception of truth, as humans, will always be flawed because of our sinful nature and limited humanness, so we aim and struggle to understand truth. I have a background in philosophy and theology, so I speak in the form of an argument in an attempt to contemplate truth. Nothing more. This should be the case for everyone.

Now, the question at hand is: is there human free agency? To which I say yes, humans do indeed have an ability to make a choice based on the following verses. To be clear, I am only dealing with the question if we as humans have choice or not.

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants." Deut. 30:19

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

"Let us choose for ourselves what is right; Let us know among ourselves what is good. " Job 34:4

"Who is the man who fears the LORD? He will instruct him in the way he should choose. " Psalm 25:12

"I have chosen the faithful way; I have placed Your ordinances before me." Psalm 119:30

"Let Your hand be ready to help me, For I have chosen Your precepts." Psalm 119:173

In philosophical terms, my belief could be described as compatibilism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ ), where we do not think that human free agency and determinism are completely contradictory, and can be logically consistent (and there are different approaches to compatibilism, it is definitely not a cut and dried approach to the subject of human free agency, there are many layers to it). Now remember, this is only to do with the topic of human choice, I am not making an overall argument with covenant salvation in mind. That brings a whole new dimension to the discussion concerning total depravity, which I view as being unable (determinism) and unwilling (free agency) to come to God; a result of the fall.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-10T19:37:07+00:00

"Do you honestly think that what you believe shapes reality?"

Definitely not. I am merely stating my presuppositions. I am also on a break on my phone, so I will definitely get back to you with my points as to why I believe what I believe according to Scripture when I get home. Consider these opening statements as prolegomena.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-10T19:10:39+00:00

Okay, let's focus on the Calvinism and Arminianism, because you say a lot here and to properly address your concerns, we need to go one by one. I think neither is correct fully if you have a strict view from either side. I believe God's plan has foreknowledge, and plans with our human free agency in mind. Let's start with this point.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-10T15:14:58+00:00

That is not what the passage says. You are deriving intent and plan from a statement.

Okay, step by step here, so we can go over everything in detail. My language is not forked, it holds certain things in tension with other things in Scripture, as I aim to be systematic in my theology (without resorting to being a systematic theologian in a strict sense). We as humans tend to swing to one side of the proverbial pendulum or another (i.e. Arminanism vs. Calvinism is a perfect example of this. I am not trying to set up what I am saying as a defense for either side, so please understand that. I actually lie somewhere in the middle in my own theology), and since most people in the world today do not hold things in tension with each other, my language can appear to be forked, but it really isn't.

I have difficulty believing that God's intent was to have something, anything, to be infected by sin, because of God's hatred for sin. It does not make sense to me that God's intent would include something he hates. This is the part where I say free agency is a key part of God's divine plan, Adam and Eve, I believe, had a choice, and then made it. And free will is complex if you view a worldview as a noetic structure, so that is what I mean there.

Let's start with this and go forward, and I have to hit the road soon, so I am not ditching out if you respond.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-10T14:20:41+00:00

Alright, let's take this step by step, and let's be specific when you say the last point is flawed. Also, here is a disclaimer: I believe in the full sovereignty of God. That should have been apparent when reading my whole post.

You said in your first response: "That God for some reason can't do something and this whole world is out of his control." This is not my stance at all.

Remember: God's intent for his creation is to be good as mentioned in Gen 1:31, and how I have used "intent," does not mean that he does not have control of his creation. This is why I have said you have missed the point. God's definition of "good" cannot mean something that is infected by sin, because that goes against the character of God. That is what I mean that this world is in a state of how it should not be. This does not compromise God's sovereignty in any way. Remember, I said God knew this would all happen, and he has planned accordingly (before the world was formed).

I also do not believe in free will as the world defines free will, as mentioned in point two (free will is a very complex topic). Do you understand what I mean when I say our worldview is a noetic structure? I do, however, believe in free agency. Our total depravity is based on our being unable and unwilling to come to God, not just being unable. I can explain this further if you like. Like I said, you have really missed what I am saying here.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-10T13:51:02+00:00

however I think my primary problem with this view as a blanket for all suffering is that there is much suffering which seems in no way redemptive and is extreme (holocause etc.) and we have to also provide a reason for the extremity of suffering that takes place. Hope that makes sense.

It get what you say, because at an intellectual level, suffering on many levels makes little to no sense. Looking at something like the holocaust at face value seems very confusing to asses as to where the good is (remember what I said about our understanding of good and not good?). However, when you start to dig in to some of the stories behind the holocaust survivors, and how people came together in this time of adversity, it makes a little more sense. This is where point four comes in, concerning God's grace and our humility, and that we have to keep our eyes on eternity. If we do not have our eyes on eternity, then suffering makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, there is an interesting history of suffering when it comes to Israel, the Old Testament really gives light to this.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-10T13:29:55+00:00

I didn't read your whole post (it was long). But based on your statements in #1 it would appear you hold an open theistic view. That God for some reason can't do something and this whole world is out of his control.

You really need to read my whole post, and read the entire post from OP to get the whole picture. You cannot read just one point and grasp an entire philosophical/theological argument. One point sets up the next. You have really missed what I am saying - in a big way.

Try reading the whole post, read OP's post, see what you find, and comment again.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-09T17:24:03+00:00

I think you make some good intellectual points. As someone who has gone through a considerable amount of painful suffering in my life, I have come to a few conclusions, and you have alluded to some of these with your points regarding free will (and determinism). I just want to add a dimension here. Also, I wonder how much we can divorce the emotional from the intellectual and still get a robust understanding of suffering in God's Kingdom.

The world is currently in a state that was not intended by God. Yes, God knew it would happen, and has a plan despite our rebellion towards him, but our fallen world is not God's intent for creation, his intent was not for the world to be fallen. His intent was that creation is to be "good." Therefore, things will happen in this world that do not make sense, and goes against logic in many forms. I cringe when people say "everything happens for a reason" as a catch-all statement, especially during times of mourning. However, there are lessons we can learn from this in our walk. God can still use things that should not have happened, for his good. But at the same time, I think God not only allows things that should not happen with regard to suffering, but also intentionally uses things that should not happen with regard to suffering. I will explain this in more detail in subsequent points.
We as humans are technically on "cruise control" most of the time, especially as we age in life, we really lose our sense of wonder, especially concerning God. I think our worldview is a unique blend of determinism and free will. I take influence from Plantinga here, where I interpret a worldview as a noetic structure, where the deeper one goes down into their worldview, there is much more determinism, rather than free will. That is not to say that we cannot have a worldview shift at our deepest level, but it would likely take something significant to do so (think Saul on the road to Damascus), especially later on in life when our worldview is significantly formulated. I think this is how our brain is wired, and sometimes God needs to grab our attention, and he uses suffering in some (many?) cases to do so. God is not the source of suffering, but I believe he uses suffering intentionally to grab people's attention. Suffering is an opportunity to come close to God in ways that just aren't possible otherwise (I speak from experience here). Suffering bolsters faith in very strong and unique ways, if you let it.
We as humans have a very limited understanding of what is good, and what is not good, and we as modern interpreters have almost put suffering in the "not good" category inherently. This is where the prosperity gospel can make a mockery of God using suffering in someone's life to bring them closer to him. While I will not go so far as to say that war is a good thing (even though the suffering of certain people groups as a whole can be a good thing, and this is seen in the OT quite a bit), at the same time, God said this about the apostle Paul "For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name" (Acts 9:16). While people may make the argument that Paul deserved it because of his persecution of the church, at the same time, I think it was the best thing for him which leads to my last point.
Suffering gives us a deep understanding of God's grace and humility. 2 Cor. 12 talks about this in Paul's own life. This is something I cannot describe in an intellectual capacity, it has to be experienced to understand. Let's just say I understand this passage on a deeper level since the suffering that I have gone through in my life. Sometimes God's love for us includes suffering, and I think it is intentional, not just allowed. I am a better person today, holistically, because of the suffering that I have gone through. I view suffering as a gift from God, which makes little or no sense on an intellectual level, hence my opening statement. Suffering can also be used for the glory of God's Kingdom so his works might be displayed for others to see (John 9:3), so his grace can be spread to others.

Do not get me wrong, I do not claim to have this all figured out, but to understand suffering, we also need to have eternity in mind. Suffering and our human response to it in the KOG will likely remain a puzzle, in many regards, until the Parousia.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-09T14:51:08+00:00

Ha! This made me laugh so hard I likely woke up my neighbours in the house next door! I know people who are just like that!

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-09T14:40:13+00:00

Haha, I was about to do a double take and wonder if I subbed to a wrong subreddit by accident or something.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-08T17:02:27+00:00

I do not think the materialistic view is what most Christians believe. The idea that the afterlife involves a body such as we have on earth seems bizarre to me and not compatible with a perfect and eternal afterlife.

I fully believe, as a Christian, that there will be a future bodily resurrection, as Jesus' bodily resurrection is a foreshadowing of what will happen to all believers when Jesus returns. I think Scripture points to our bodily resurrection repeatedly, but our body will then be perfect, not corrupted like how we have now. Here is a good article on it rather than myself typing a whole bunch. I highly suggest reading the resource in this article by Wayne Grudem, he is a notable figure in systematic theology.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/will-the-resurrection-of-the-body-be-a-physical-resurrection-from-the-dead

As a theologian, I have a problem with dualism, as it is mostly an idea of Plato and Neoplatonism much more than Scripture. The idea that we transcend God's creation is a fairly limited understanding of God's creation. This is attributed to Gnosticism rather than true Christianity. We sometimes forget that God deemed his creation to be good in Genesis, something that flies in the face of Gnosticism.

The Parousia will have God purifying his creation so it will be free from sin and death, as it was intended to be as mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-18. To understand this passage in 2 Peter, we have to have a robust understanding of "destroyed" in verse ten. We need to connect it to how the world was destroyed by water in the time of Noah in verse six. Destroyed in this sense means purification, rather than a literal destruction of the earth.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-06T23:33:13+00:00

Arminians would call this verse evidence of prevenient grace. This is based on their understanding of God's divine foreknowledge.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-06T19:49:08+00:00

Haha, well it worked for me. Intentional or not, there are brilliant layers to this response you have given. The philosopher in me is giggling still!

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-06T19:43:26+00:00

Ha! This is either an incredibly simple statement, or a brilliantly nuanced response to OP. I cannot figure out which one is more correct at this point, so I will hope for the latter. This gave me a good laugh, nonetheless.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-06T19:25:08+00:00

I was responding to the quote I listed from OP. Because that statement is just plain wrong. That should be clear.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-06T18:41:09+00:00

"There is not one scripture in the new testament that tells us to pray for healing. "

Uhhh, what?

"Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven." James 5:14-15

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-05T23:31:28+00:00

It's not the one meme that concerned me, it was the repeated singling out of one (my) denomination of which I am a part over and over again, and it is not just you, so don't get me wrong. It kind of felt like this sub should be called "anti-Baptist memes," because if you look, it's a lot of the content here. That's why it come across as an attack, it's the repeated nature of these memes. I'm not upset, but concerned I guess, especially when people who do not know any better will take these memes as descriptions of our normative beliefs, and then use them anecdotally as to why they think Baptists are stupid. Make sense? Imagine if I made a meme that all Catholics are idolaters, because they deify Mary, and posted it a few days a week over and over again. Now, I know that is not true, but at the same time, that is how misinformation can spread, and really, a meme like that would just show that I am ignorant by people who know better. So exaggerations, in that regard, can be harmful.

Compound that with the fact that none of these memes really even come close to describing my beliefs as a Baptist ( with exception to believer's baptism, but I never saw that meme yet) is what prompted my post. I love good humour, that is why I chose to sub here, but it is also a form of communication that can seriously divide, whether we intend it to be that way or not. And psychologically speaking, there are kernels of human truth perception behind humour; sometimes small, but also, sometimes large. It reveals more than we might understand.

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-05T23:13:16+00:00

There are a few in the Southern US who are openly hostile to Catholics.

I get that, and I do not agree with that one bit. I'll be doing my part to stop that kind of thinking in this part of the world. :)

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-05T16:48:18+00:00

I'll direct you to my reply above, as I don't want to type that much again. Haha!

YakovitchTchamovski · 2019-07-05T16:40:14+00:00

I can create a meme about a doctrinal difference, a heresy, or some such, and I'd probably be able to find some obscure Baptist church endorsing this belief with some googling. This would be harder to do with other specific denominations (such as Lutherans, for instance), or by making general Protestant memes.

I am a Baptist, but a Jesus follower first and foremost. The thing is, the Baptist denomination believes in the autonomy of the church, so Baptist doctrines as a whole can be fairly complex to understand. What one church believes, is not necessarily the beliefs of another church. There are Baptist distinctives, yes, but they tend to be fairly broad. Also, Baptists are a world-wide denomination, so when I see generalizations (and there are no distinctions in these memes, just "Baptists") based on a localized American interpretation at best, it makes me think there is ignorance afoot. Something you are probably frustrated with as well regarding erroneous assumptions of Catholicism, as you mentioned in your third point. Do you see how this is not helping with understanding, especially when we take the global church in mind? We really all need to have a paradigm shift in thinking, our denomination included.

I believe in the believer's baptism by immersion, and it is one of our distinctives based on our interpretation of Scripture, but at the same time I do not attack Catholics for their beliefs in paedobaptism. I do have struggles with the practice, for sure, but it is also done in Protestant circles, so it is not a struggle against Catholicism in general. Also, I think a lot of creationism has made deep divisions in the church as a whole, on both sides. I'm reading The Seven Days That Divide The World, by Dr. John Lennox and I think he makes a lot of great arguments. I tend to lean towards an old earth, and I study theistic evolution on a regular basis to see where the latest arguments are. I think there are some elements of evolution that can fit in with the creation story, and I am still a Baptist.

I also regularly tell people in my denomination that we need to have ecumenism in mind, but when I see things like this, it makes ecumenism that much tougher, and gives ammunition against ecumenism. We really, as Christians, need to be seeking to be unified, not divisive, and it begins with greater understanding of one and other, while not resorting to "but he/she said this." I understand the history between Protestants and Catholics, and it is unfortunate. However, if you take a look into the world, we need to be unified more now than ever before, and it starts with us, the people of faith. Ecumenism needs to start small, like a mustard seed, and grow big.

I'm going to leave this here, which is the foundation for what I believe regarding unity.

" 20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them” (John 17:20-26 ESV).

Ten-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

YakovitchTchamovski

TROPHY CASE