Our Glorious Gospel

Answers For Today ^ | Chuck Smith

[Corin Stormhands]

Thanks for the applause. That was intentional. Do you see the point I'm trying to make?

[CCWoody]

***Yes, I made the assertion.***

And ctd spanked it pretty hard! Like I said, perhaps now would be a good time for a holy huddle of "free willers" so that you can get your playbook straightened out. It doesn't look good when you spank each other.

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

So, since it cannot be avoided...

You got scripture that says you gotta be on FReeRepublic?

And, you wouldn't know charity if it bit you on the butt.

[Gamecock]

He is with us in spirit!

[Gamecock]

Alls I was sayin' is that y'all don't need to be so skeered of soap. It's a good thing.

I don't need no soap. I have the blood of Christ.

[Revelation 911]

Well, at least then, I won't have to contend against the Arminian cesspool of doctrinal filth on FR.

hey - ya know whats funny ?

neither does popesqueal LOL

[Gamecock]

In all seriousness, I don't. Try again.

[CCWoody]

***Scrub brush, water, and the holy soap.***

Where is the rubber duckie?

[Corin Stormhands]

ctd said there was no scriptural basis for what I'd said. I'd already admitted that I couldn't proof text it.

I don't get the problem with the concept that all men seek after something. Sin is the "fulfillment" of the desire for pleasure.

Men seek after pleasure. Pleasure will not satisfy. That's why perverts never get enough sex. That's why alcoholics never get enough alcohol.

The sex and alcohol don't meet the need they have within.

Nothing will meet that need but Christ.

Woody, the only way I can see that you would have a problem with that is if you say the unregenerate do not need a Savior.

Is that what your saying?

[Corin Stormhands]

I don't need no soap. I have the blood of Christ.

Isn't that what the Malachi scripture is alluding to?

[Corin Stormhands]

See my #129 below (or above)...

[Revelation 911]

He is with us in spirit!

Beano helps

[Gamecock]

Yup, but not according to Marlowe's spritual guru, Chuck Smith:

The pastor responded, "If soap is so good, why isn't everyone clean?" Does the fact of dirty people testify against the value of soap? No. It works, but you have to apply it..

[Corin Stormhands]

Like I said, alls I was sayin' was that there's no need to be skeered of soap...

[PFKEY]

Hey OP, thanks for the allegory.

I know you are trying to help me understand and I appreciate the effort.

Where I am still lacking in understanding is related to my nature. My sinful nature.

In your example, before my terrible accident it was my nature to breath. I required oxygen. After your choice to bring me back to life it still remains my nature to breath.

Would a better example be that I am a fish and as such my nature requires that I live in the ocean and breath water.

Then you come along and for your good pleasure or glory you decide to change my nature and give me lungs instead.

Now you throw me back in the ocean and I'm drown.

Then by your grace you decide to throw me on land and clear the water from my lungs. You choose to bring me back to life.

My nature has changed. I still need oxygen to breath but can no longer by my nature extract that oxygen from the water and now must live on land and breath air in order to live.

Could you restate your allegory using this fish or something similar which shows my changed nature?

[CCWoody]

***ctd said there was no scriptural basis for what I'd said. I'd already admitted that I couldn't proof text it.***

Do you often have doctrinal beliefs which have "no scriptural basis"? And, do you often have doctrinal beliefs for which you have no aparent good reason to so believe?

***Sin is the "fulfillment" of the desire for pleasure.***

You sound so much like an ascetic gnostic its not even funny.

Does this mean that because sex is fun and pleasurable it is a sin?

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to go back and rethink your doctrine.

***Is that what your saying?***

I have already said that man "needs" to glorify God.
You said that man has a need to glorify God.

If you can't see the difference between the two statements, then you need to go back to school and pick up some remedial work in English. Or, better yet, you have ctd "SupraGenius" on your team. Ask him, if you can tear him away from his off FR activities. We have tried, in vain, to get him to answer a few simple questions.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

***Beano helps***

Only if you are barking out Arminian doctrines!

Woody.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hey OP, thanks for the allegory. I know you are trying to help me understand and I appreciate the effort. Where I am still lacking in understanding is related to my nature. My sinful nature. In your example, before my terrible accident it was my nature to breath. I required oxygen. After your choice to bring me back to life it still remains my nature to breath. Would a better example be that I am a fish and as such my nature requires that I live in the ocean and breath water. Then you come along and for your good pleasure or glory you decide to change my nature and give me lungs instead. Now you throw me back in the ocean and I'm drown. Then by your grace you decide to throw me on land and clear the water from my lungs. You choose to bring me back to life. My nature has changed. I still need oxygen to breath but can no longer by my nature extract that oxygen from the water and now must live on land and breath air in order to live. Could you restate your allegory using this fish or something similar which shows my changed nature?

No need for a new allegory. Just go back to my original example.

Your nature was "dead", and therefore you did not breathe. (breath here corresponding to belief)

Your nature was then changed to "alive", and therefore you breathed.(breath here corresponding to belief)

Clear enough??

[P-Marlowe]

Have you?

[Gamecock]

Used you ridiculous rope soap? Grow up.

I am washed in Christ. Why don't you read some Jack Chick Tracts and look for your next earth shattering, two-bit, non-Biblical revelation.