Posted on 01/21/2005 6:34:28 AM PST by P-Marlowe
If I had aa nickel for everytyme I missspelled somethang or used the rong tense hear I''d be a wealtee man. ;o)
I have a torn opinion about long follow-on posts.
Mostly, I'd rather have them posted in their extensive glory. Saves me linking elsewhere--sometimes a bothersome or futile effort.
My page down button works very fast and well. Hasn't broken my finger, yet.
I think getting annoyed over such a small thing is indicative of a bigger problem.
I will await his answer, but I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for how God can Elect based on a man's foreseen actions, and yet it is not God being a respecter of persons, which the Word clearly says He's not. The two cannot be reconciled.
Yet if God chooses for His own reasons and not foreseen actions, then the accusation is that God is arbitrary. They won't let God be God. He must fit their idea of how it must be, and will twist scripture and redefine words to make it line up. And then cry foul! when it's pointed out.
That's where the speculation about the state of salvation of another who dares to do so comes from. It's the ultimate 'ad hominem', designed to deflect attention away from the bankruptcy of the accuser's position.
If God is no respecter of persons, then His choice of the Elect cannot be based on foreseen faith, but on His own Wise Counsel. Certainly He sees all of the actions of all men down through time, or He wouldn't be God. But He doesn't base His choice of certain of them on those foreseen actions. Scripture says
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."(Rom 8:29),
and again,
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Eph 1:4-6)
and yet again,
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph 1:11)
Over and over scripture states that believers are predestinated according to HIS Will, according to HIS purpose, and NEVER according to the actions of men.
Foreknow is to be aware beforehand, but the way Paul uses the term, and the way God uses it, indicates Love for the object of the foreknowledge, not just intellectual awareness of them. Paul asks,
"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (Rom 11:1-5)
Clearly the reference is to Israel, and to a people which He foreknew. We know from scripture that God loved Israel. He says "salvation is of the Jews". The foreknown people of God are those whom He loved. Paul teaches an important aspect of Grace and Election in this passage, and clearly shows by scripture that God Himself says that it is HE who preserves the remnant, and no other, according to the Election of Grace.
I have no problem with long articles copied and pasted as a post IF they fit the theme of the original. Luther's view of predestination doesn't meet that criterion, imho.
I do think it breaks the flow of the conversation.
I do think that it is possible to comment on a distracting practice without being annoyed. Actually, one can be sort of "matter-of-fact" about it.
***Actually, it's the Calvinists usually who have been derisive, castigating, dismissive etc. at the thought that any of we Arminians were really saved!***
If you are referring to the recently banned poster, he was not a Calvinist, but a neo Gnostic. But, the ruling has been given.
Christian.
***We knew the game you were playing.***
It was not a game.
Christian.
Hi K2blader, [thanks Qx for the ping],
Your post #220 is right on the money. I too wonder about the supposed "Christian" FReepers who ridicule and mock other believers for voicing anything with which they disagree. I seem to recall having recently commented that some folk claiming to be Christians are actually Pharisees. Maybe even hellbound Pharisees.
Sad.
Thank you for speaking up.
Quix,
Thank you for the transparency and vulnerability of your post.
JM
That was the reality.. there were threads where the gospel was presented by Calvinists and not by the wages due crowd.
There've been a few good threads posted by the dortist calvinists.
But the arminian calvinists have always posted the best threads and had the best comments. :>)
So says the man who identifies himself with an oxymoron.
Opinions vary xzins, opinions vary
Calvinists in the tradition of arminius also have much better senses of humor.
Hence the description "Calvinist in the tradition of Arminius"
Take heed of your own advice, hero.
They see you as an institutional and theological threat. And rightly so. They've worked hard to take over every denomination in America. Seeing their territory shrink anywhere usually causes some uproar.
Stay the course.
I generally do except on Saturday nights and Tuesday afternoons.
Or at least the longest surviving ones...
See...humor can be fun and it even relieves stress. :>)
Your memory is selective at best RN. But who's keeping score?
You're still just distracting from ftd's point.
But you knew that.
I should have looked at what I pasted. I thought I'd copied your words "or at least the longest surviving ones."
As I look now at the post, it is a link for an article on Iraq.
It's a good article, and worth reading, but I'd better in the future start AT LEAST looking at what I post after I hit "paste."
Now that is funny! :>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.