Free Republic

https://www.dangerous.com/38538/most-eligible-sjws-2017/

At this point it’s going to be hard to say all the emails are fake.

The photograph of the man overlays perfectly with the supposed graffiti work. I think this might be a hoax.

I decided to reread Frank E Peretti’s novel Prophet after seeing the Gosnell trial in the news. It’s amazingly on target - dead women, dead babies, cover ups by the news media, government regulators looking away for political reasons, doctors and hospitals who don’t really want to rock the boat, stonewalling of anyone trying to investigate, and ultimately exposure.

I have come to understand Romans 4 is mistranslated. I fixed it here.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham was of the elect, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but, because he is elect, trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their election is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”[b]
9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s election was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Only God knows. Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by election while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all the elect but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the election that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by election. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, election means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 Therefore, the promise comes by election, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who do not have the law.

...

There seems to me to be lots of passages in the Bible similar to this one that seem pointless if all the tenets of Calvinism are accepted as listed at the top of the post. Far more than if you accept man has a choice to make as he responds to the offer of the Gospel. In either case, there are passages that are difficult to reconcile with either position. I’m sort of going with the idea if 10 buckets go one way, and 2 buckets go the other, maybe the 10 bucket side is the best starting point.

I am actually Baptist more or less forever, and I really don’t care too much if it is a Catholic concept or a Protestant concept. I got the idea from mediating on God’s word. That’s not to say I totally disregard or am opposed to learning from smart people who have thought about it far more than me. It’s just on this one subject people tend to get so polarized - it’s like they read half the Bible and ignore whatever is inconvenient to their doctrinal position. So in this case I finally gave up and started thinking about it myself. So there are no doubt holes in my thinking, which is partially why I decided to post on the thread even though I realized almost everyone on the thread was talking past each other. But I also know one of the easiest way to find some holes in your thinking is to put it on the table and let others have a go at it.

So I think God makes choices, and choice is a necessity for real love to exist. I do not think God had to send Jesus to die on the cross, but that he did so because he loved us. He would have been just to send us all to hell, but he didn’t. It was a choice and it demonstrates his love.

My wife and I are committed to one another deeply, and I am well aware of her good points as well as her imperfections, and vice versa she for me. She could no doubt find another man, with more money or looks or wisdom or 100 other things, if she wanted. But she doesn’t. She chooses me, and I choose her - daily (well, except when I’m selfish :-)). Because of this relationship, we also can enjoy intimacy in the deepest meaning of marriage - fully known, but still chosen. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would argue a relationship with a blow up doll, with “perfect” features, and pre-programmed voice saying the same words would be equivalent. There is no way a blow up doll can love you, as it can make no choice to accept you in spite of flaws that are fully known. If you have had the pleasure of this sort of a relationship, I hope you will agree the measure of love is how much the spouses choose to meet each others needs verses their own. Without choice, love ceases to exist.

Assuming you still don’t agree, can you give me an example, in human relationships, of a demonstration of love without someone making a choice?

If you come to accept my position about love requiring a choice, 1 John 4:9 is easy to understand. When we see God filled with mercy and compassion even though we rejected him, we can know he loves us. If we are moved by this, and choose to accept his gift, we return the love because of the choice we exercized. If we are robots, with no choice except what he gives us by his election, we can’t love him, so as I read the verse, I see confirmation we have a free will.

I think maybe I wasn’t clear on the point I was trying to make. My point was this, for faith or love to exist, a choice must be available. For instance, I deeply appreciate my wife because she makes choices daily to benefit me and not herself. This is love. If she were a robot instead, she might well do lots of things for me, and benefit me greatly, but she could not agape love me, ever, since she would have no option to do anything besides obey me.

So for God to create man in his image, and for us to be able to give and receive love, He needed to give us a choice. He was certainly aware that many people would make bad choices, and that many people would choose him. However he wanted to reveal himself as the God of love, and wanted us to be able to give and receive love, so he made a choice to create us with a free will. At the same time he knew we’d blow it, by and large, so he made a plan for that too.

So basically your question seems to miss the point. I believe God gave us a choice because he wanted things like love and faith to be possible. So definitely he wanted to give them a choice. If you want to challenge the point, tell me how faith and love can exist without the ability to choose. If you agree that faith and love require choice, then I think it is clear why we have a choice, because God wanted a world where he could demonstrate love, and we could experience it too. So rather than debate God’s intention for the tree, let’s debate if love can exist without choice. If you come to the conclusion it can’t, as I have, then I expect you won’t be asking the question you did anymore.

This could easily go up to 10,000 replies and it probably would convince few people to switch positions. I recently read through the whole NT for verses that applied to this very subject. From my reading it seems there are more verses that emphasize the faith aspect of salvation rather than the election aspect. That being said both are definitely mentioned, so whatever a person decides it has to incorporate both concepts.

My take on it is this, from Rom 8.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

The order is foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. The process starts with foreknew, which leaves a door open for a meaningful decision by a person not predetermined by god.

Acknowledging we are dead in our sins and trespasses, it seems we need some power to quicken us, like Rom 1 says here For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes. There are a number of other verses that mention the power of Gods word and the gospel. So God offers us the Gospel and gives us the free will to choose, and those he foreknew would believe he predestined to all kinds of good stuff.

I personally do not think love and faith can exist at all in robots who are pre-programmed to make a certain choice, which is something Calvinism seems to require. Reading through the whole Bible, there would be an awful lot of wasted pages discussing love, faith, and choosing, believing etc, like they matter. Why put a tree in the garden of eden, at the beginning, if God’s intention wasn’t to give them a choice.

If God lined up a bunch of criminals, and then pulled the trigger of a gun, shooting 9 of 10 people, some may say he would be just since they are all criminals. However, if he made them, before they were born, some to be saved and some to burn in hell forever - well let’s just say I have a hard time reconciling that with “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

So I’m still meditating on it, and probably will be 20 years from now. I’m sure when we get to heaven and he explains it, we have a duh moment.

We both agree Jesus, before he ascended, told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit.

The only disagreement I see is over the passage in John 20:22 that is apparently not clear enough to provide convincing evidence about what it says.

You believe it says
1) generally a prophetic pronouncement of the holy spirit being given at Pentecost
2) Breathing is present tense and occurred as Jesus was speaking
3) Receive is prophetic even though it is not a future tense verb
4) Because it doesn’t say “immediately” after “receive”, the best interpretation is that it is a future promise.

I still think it is easier to interpret as they received the Holy Spirit then, and then again at Pentecost.

You can guess my reasons
1) breathing on them. I rather expect Adam awoke as soon as God breathed the breathe of life into him in Gen2:7. Not that God breathed the breathe of life in him and he awoke 10 days later (that complicates 6 days of creation). It doesn’t say he woke immediately, but I think most people would assume even though it isn’t stated that God breathed and Adam immediately awoke.

2) Receive is a tense that is more likely to indicate something starting immediately rather than in the future. If Jesus meant it to be prophetic, he could have used a future tense verb.

3) The places where it discusses waiting in Jerusalem for the promise of the spirit is obviously a different meeting with the disciples, since they went to galilee after this occurrence.

I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to why it seems they received the spirit twice, unless it was for different purposes. I certainly believe every new testament believer is indwelled with the holy spirit when they are saved. That being said I see very few that live with the same kind of courage and power displayed by the disciple after pentecost.

Whether of not we discuss speaking in tongues or other supernatural manifestations is not really that important to me. The fact I see few believers that live according to promises like “sin shall have no dominion over you” or “greater works than these ye shall do” worries me more. I’m just saying I see these as the exception rather than the rule, and I’ve often wondered why the average baptist for instance seems so impotent of God’s power in their life, in spite of being indwelled.

OK - I’m pretty sure I understand what you are trying to say.

Here are some things I think make that interpretation difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

1) in John 20:22, it says he breathed on them, and said to them, receive ye the holy spirit. Obviously the breathing on them happened at the time Jesus was speaking, so it makes for awkward interpretation, just reading the verse, that the receiving of the holy ghost was to occur many days in the future. The easiest interpretation of the verse is that Jesus breathed on them and then immediately they received the holy spirit. The greek verb tense also supports this. There is no command to wait in Jerusalem at this point, because they will be in Galilee in John 21.

2) after this, In John 21, Jesus appeared to them in Galilee

3) Most, if not all of the quotes that refer to the coming of the holy spirit at pentecost, (acts 1:4, luke 24:49) tell the disciples to tarry in jerusalem and wait for the promise of the father. This clearly occurred after the first John 20 incident, since they went to Galilee after John 20 and before acts:4 and luke 24:49.

So if I approach it without preconceived notions the easiest interpretation is:
1) Jesus breathed on them and they received the holy spirit
2) They went to galilee and met jesus there
3) They came back to Jerusalem and met Jesus again before he ascended. Here he gave them the command to tarry and wait for the Holy Spirit again. This second event seems in context to be associated with the power to minister.

I can see your point, but I can’t get it from reading the scriptures unless I start with the premise there is only one occurrence. The plain reading with two occurrences is still easier for me to fit to the text.

OK, I guess I’m not following you. In your first post it seemed to me you were saying the command to receive the Holy Spirit was given while Jesus was here, but that it didn’t occur until Pentecost. I replied that seemed difficult according to the Greek. Then you reply with what I interpret to mean you think there is a time gap between 5 and 6 in Acts, and that they received the Holy Spirit when Jesus was still present. But verse one of Acts makes that a difficult interpretation.

So I think I’m just missing what you are trying to tell me and I would like to understand.

I would put it this way:

Jesus spoke to his disciples on more than one occasion after the resurrection about the Holy Spirit, and their assignment in the kingdom work. On one occasion, he commands them to receive the Holy Spirit, which happened immediately. On another occasion, probably nearer the end, he gives them instructions to wait for the promise of the father before beginning their public ministry. Then he departs and they wait for Pentecost, and then receive the Holy Spirit again.

So perhaps you could correct my timeline to make it agree with what you think occurred, and then we can start discussing from the same starting point.

I hadn’t thought of that. However the verb “receive” is in the aorist imperative active voice, which according to the Zodhiates means: “the aorist imperative denotes a command (yes), request (no), or entreaty(no). Unlike the present imperative it does not invoke a command ... for continuous or repetitive action. Instead it is often used for general exhortations and for things that must begin at that very moment.

Given the tense of the verb, and the context, I think it is quite clear they received the Holy Spirit as he spoke the words. Of course I’m no Greek expert.

I’m a long time Baptist, so in some ways your explanation might be convenient, but as yet I don’t think a careful study supports it.

from John 20

Jesus Appears to His Disciples

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

It seems Jesus had already given them the Holy Spirit, so I think it is clear the disciples were believers, and Pentecost was a separate/secondary event.

I pretty much a lurker, but I’d like to contribute my favorite example. Jehoshaphat was facing a big army and asked God what to do. Answer: march outside, go stand on the hill, and watch. As a military plan, leaving the walls of the city doesn’t seem to be the smartest idea when facing an army, but that was the instruction. He had a choice to believe, and he did. Result: God delivered a boat load of blessing right to his doorstep. He didn’t have to go attack a distant nation and haul the loot home, it was delivered for him. It is clear he didn’t perk up with excitement the day he got the news about the enemies, but I think all along God had in mind to bless him beyond his dreams. It’s so hard to remember that when the circumstances appear dire, but Rom 8:28 says the same is true for those of us who love Him.

Eph 4:14-15 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

A sign of Christian maturity is to be able to speak the truth in love. Note this requires two parts, an ability to speak the truth and doing it in love. Jesus demonstrated it perfectly when he dealt with the woman caught in adultery. He did not condemn her, but protected her from the religious goons who where trying to trap Him. He finished up by telling her to go and sin no more. Love, no condemnation, yet speaking truth - beautiful.

1 Cor 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

Person passing out tract ==> clanging symbol. yuk.

All that being said I’d like to see modesty return to our society.

upside down platform pics here


http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=13201

The upside down platform is Chevron Typhoon. There is a press release about it on the Chevron website, but it states the platform "suffered serious damage" and fails to mention it is floating upside down. Pics are available if you google "Chevron Typhoon"

Can't say the trend on the Iowa Electronic Markets looks very good.

Pasted earlier on another thread, but I think it deserves a repeat.

Get the little girl and her dad on a plane to meet President Bush ASAP. Give her an autographed replacement. Great photo op - mean Democrats, nice Republicans.

BC 04 ought to have her and her dad on a plane ASAP to meet President Bush, to present her with a nice big autographed sign. This is a perfect excuse to rip the Demo's and get more free campaign coverage.