Posted on 08/30/2008 7:09:59 AM PDT by chessplayer
Taking a look at the stories in the Old Media will show that the Media is turning attack dog ASAP on McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin. Notice the main meme is her supposed "inexperience." Funny how Palin was the VP pick for about 15 seconds before the Old Media went after her "inexperience" while they have yet to hit Barry Obama on HIS inexperience at all and he's been running for president since 2004. We should also note that Palin didn't get the honeymoon that Biden got when his announcement was made. But, the worst is yet to come and the Daily Kos is doing its level best to mine the lowest of lows. In a Kos diary today, it is being alleged that Sarah Palin "faked" the pregnancy of her last child, a baby born with Down's Syndrome. The claim is that it was her teenaged daughter's child, not hers. And, true to form, the Kossacks took that absurd calumny and hate even further in the comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Faith does not save men. God's grace alone saves men through faith alone. But as in the case of infants or those who are mentally handicapped, God's grace may extend to them through the perfect operation of His mercy. The Scriptural example of David's son suggests this to be true.
If you belive even one infant is saved, baptized or not, then you agree with Calvinists who say it is certainly possible for God to work His grace in the heart of an infant because that infant has accomplished no works which would earn his salvation.
Calvinists rightly teach that persons dying in infancy are saved in the same manner as are saved adults. God has only one plan of salvation. It teaches that sinners are saved by God's free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, totally apart from any works of righteousness they perform or any supposed virtue in them. Everyone who is saved — including all persons dying in infancy — is saved through being elected to salvation by God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit (as set forth in preceding messages)... B.B. Warfield, born in Kentucky in 1851, was along with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck one of the three most outstanding Reformed theologians in his day. He wrote concerning those who die in infancy: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world" (quoted in Boettner's book)...""...Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church emphatically declares that infants and young children dying unbaptized are forbidden to enter heaven. According to the article "Infants, Unbaptized" in A Catholic Dictionary, "The Church has always taught that unbaptized children are excluded from heaven .... Heaven is a reward in no way due to their human nature as such."
So, Kosta, was David right to believe he would see his son again, or not?
Or is this question above your pay grade?
Forest Keeper left no doubt that this belief is a reasonable assumption, but not a fact. I couldn't agree more.
However, if it is true, than "saving faith" is an oxymoron.
God's grace alone saves men through faith alone
God's saving grace is not limited by our faith, or else God is not God. But that's what "through faith alone" suggests. If it is through faith alone then, by necessity, it excludes infants.
God's grace may extend to them through the perfect operation of His mercy. The Scriptural example of David's son suggests this to be true.
God's grace is unconstrained divine enegry of God's will (God saves whom he wants). The scriptural example of David reflect David's hope and not a fact. It made David feel good, all hope does. That doesn't mean it happened.
If you belive even one infant is saved, baptized or not, then you agree with Calvinists who say it is certainly possible for God to work His grace in the heart of an infant because that infant has accomplished no works which would earn his salvation
I do. I just don't see how that belief is consistent with "faith alone." In the Calvinist world, a saved infant is an exception to the rule. In my world, all salvation is a manifestation of God's perfect mercy, independent of what we do or believe.
We don't earn our salvation by works or by faith. Watever happens is, in spite of our works and belieefs, God's will alone, and by necessity it is perfectly just.
So, Kosta, was David right to believe he would see his son again, or not? Or is this question above your pay grade?
Funny you should even ask me this, as if it is on the level of your paygrade. Actually, it's above everyone's pay grade. But some people get delusional.
Only if one does not believe the Bible.
In the Calvinist world, a saved infant is an exception to the rule.
Not so. Not for the Calvinist who knows from Scripture that grace saves; not faith. Grace alone saves whomever God decides to redeem through Christ. If it is His will, that can include babies as well as you or me.
But I see you didn't answer my simple question. Was David right to believe he would see his son again, or not?
Do you believe David was reunited with his son in heaven, or not?
As long as someone can be saved without knowng the bible, "saving faith alone" it is an oxymoron. Neither faith, nor works, nor the Bible can be the exclusive condition imposed on God for salvation.
Therefore "saving faith alone" is an oxymoron. Period. If you said "saving grace alone" that would be a different thing.
If it is His will, that can include babies as well as you or me
Yes, but that's outside of the "saving faith alone," and therefore represents an exception in Calvinism rather than the rule.
But I see you didn't answer my simple question. Was David right to believe he would see his son again, or not? Do you believe David was reunited with his son in heaven, or not?
You are changing your question. You asked "Kosta, was David right to believe he would see his son again, or not?"
I can't tell you if he was right or not. I have no access to God's saved list.
To your altered question the answer is the same. My sens of justice or my wishes have nothing to do with God's decisions. It's God's decision, and what I think is mere speculation. And so is yours, but it seems you haven't come that realization yet.
Wow, another malformed Calvinist doctrine. Amazing how many of those there are out there.
And please read for the umpteenth time, grace saves; not faith. God tells us his method of saving His children is by His gift of grace through faith in Christ. Grace saves. And how is that grace made known to men? By the hearing of the word of God.
That leaves us still the question of infants and those adults whose minds are physically handicapped. Again, we are told that because grace saves, and grace alone, for those who cannot hear the word of God salvation is still possible because God gave us the example of David's righteous belief that he would be reunited with his dead infant son.
So again, while I realize you admit you do not know if David was "right or not" to believe he would see his son again, what is your belief? Do you believe David is united with his son, or not? And what is the reason for your belief, one way or the other?
what I think is mere speculation
Again, by repeating this statement so many times on FR you show yourself to be standing with all atheists who insist faith in Jesus Christ is "mere speculation."
you haven't come (to) that realization yet
Thank God.
Who knew? (((shrug)))
I didn't say that.
I will, again, call your attention to the Gospel according to †John:
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world: but that the world may be saved by him. John 3:16-17The statement "grace saves; not faith" is necessarily defective, in that it suggests faith is somehow unnecessary
Protestants are fond of saying sola fide, yet "grace saves; not faith" stands that on its ear. Salvation requires God's grace, faith in Christ and works that bring that faith alive (in the fullest sense of "believing in Christ:" doing as He commands).
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Eph. 2:5,8-10"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)...
Paul stressed this fact so earnestly that he repeated the exact verse twice within a span of four verses.
Delete faith and works from the process at your own peril.
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -- Titus 3:5-7"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
C'mon Kosta, you're usually not one for hyperbole. While I agree membership in a separatist party isn't necessary the most patriotic of acts, it certainly does not rise to the level of support for totalitarianists. I agree, it is a negative, but not really a big one especially when Palin's husband is not the candidate rnning for VP. Indeed, I have great respect for individuals who have repented of questionable political affiliations/ideologies as it oftentimes causes individuals.
Can you imagine how ape crap this site would go if they found out Obama's wife was a member of a separatist organization?
(sorry, a screaming 23 month old caused me to end my last post prematurely! Here’s how it was meant to end:)
Indeed, I have great respect for individuals who have repented of questionable political affiliations/ideologies as it oftentimes causes individuals to drastically change their lives.
Lol, indeed, you must be joking.
Dr. E. (#381, top): "Kosta, a question. Do you believe David was correct when he said he would see his son again, or was he wrong?"
To which I replied (but not to your satisfaction) "Forest Keeper left no doubt that this belief is a reasonable assumption, but not a fact. I couldn't agree more."(#382)
Dr. E. (#381, bottom): "So, Kosta, was David right to believe he would see his son again, or not? Or is this question above your pay grade?"
To which I replied "Funny you should even ask me this, as if it is on the level of your paygrade. Actually, it's above everyone's pay grade. But some people get delusional." (#382)
Dr. E. (#383) "Do you believe David was reunited with his son in heaven, or not?"
To which I replied "You are changing your question...I can't tell you if he was right or not. I have no access to God's saved list. To your altered question the answer is the same" (#384)
Now, if you can't see the difference in the way you worded your questions as being different (I even underlined the differences), I can't help you. In #381 you are asking me if I believe he would see his son again, then in the same post a little later you ask me to pass a judgment if David was right to believe (his belief, not mine)...Then in #382 you are asking me if I believe David was reunited with his son.
I think even a child would recognize that these are not the same questions and that seeing and reuniting are not one and the same thing.
But I will answer this last question as well: I don't know. And neither do you. You may believe hope, fantasize, whatever) that he was reunited with his son, but as far as I know the Bible doesn't tell us.
But even if it did, it would still be up to an individual to either apriori believe or not believe, which by itself doesn't make it true or false.
And please read for the umpteenth time, grace saves; not faith
If by Grace you mean mercy, I agree. No faith is needed for God to exert his mercy. No amount of faith, or self-delusion, or fasting, or kneeling, or praying, or Bible reading will assure salvation.
If we are saved it is unmerited and it is a pure act of mercy, a pardon.
God tells us his method of saving His children is by His gift of grace through faith in Christ
You mean †Paul tells us that ...
That leaves us still the question of infants and those adults whose minds are physically handicapped
No it doesn't. God is free to pardon whoever he pleases, and his reasons are revealed. Recognizing that God's pardon is an unmerited act of divine mercy (an in justice if you will), there are no special cases, or exceptions. It all falls under one and the same judgment.
And that judgment is not limited to those who have faith, who read the Bible, or who fast and receive communion. God's judgment is his prerogative if he saves us or not, and there is no condition that assures salvation, there is nothing that obliges God to save us.
for those who cannot hear the word of God salvation is still possible because God gave us the example of David's righteous belief that he would be reunited with his dead infant son.
Are you referring to
If so, there is nothing here that says this really did happen. It only expresses David's hope. In the way it's worded it is almost as if a lawyer wrote this! :) Clearly, David will follow his son, because everyone dies, and no ordinary human came back from the dead as far as we know.
So, in a sense, this is an absolutely true statement: his son died and one day David will follow him, by dying himself. There is nothing in it about reunification. It merely states what we all know, that we all join, those who passed before us, in the act of dying.
What David is quoted as saying is straight out of Genesis 37:35
Noting in any of this is about reunification.
So again, while I realize you admit you do not know if David was "right or not" to believe he would see his son again, what is your belief? Do you believe David is united with his son, or not? And what is the reason for your belief, one way or the other?
Here we go again! No I don't believe it because I don't know. Is it possible that he was reunited with his son? YES it is possible; with God everything is possible.
Again, by repeating this statement ["what I think is mere speculation"] so many times on FR you show yourself to be standing with all atheists who insist faith in Jesus Christ is "mere speculation."
The pious Jews and Muslims believe it's a mere speculation and they are hardly atheists. Atheists would not even speculate since they deny God.
My idea of God is not like yours. I see things around me and above me and what we know of this world (cosmos) it is evident that something caused all this to exist. We call that something God, but we know very little about God except what human fancy painted through revelation tainted with human imagery, a God made in human image and for human purpose.
That doesn't make me an atheist.
Kosta: you haven't come (to) that realization yet
Dr. E: Thank God.
No, thank yourself.
getoffmylan: Membership in a separatist party is nothing short of treasonous.
Thank you! Let's not forget that we have been friends with many-a-totalitarian/dictator and their totalitarianism/distatorship didn't bother us at all.
But I don't recall that any adminsitration ever flitered with traitors and their sympathizers.
I may be wrong, but I don't think traitors flatter the Republican party very much. Can you imagine how ape crap this site would go if they found out Obama's wife was a member of a separatist organization?
You took the words out of my mouth. Great answer! You made an excellent case of double standards some people live by.
I have yet to hear their apology to the nation.
Oh, FK be serious. This is Free Republic; nobody ever said anything about Pelosi being unfit????????????????????????????
The context of my remark was that no one ever said anything against Pelosi as being unfit to be number 2 in line to the Presidency BECAUSE she was a mother of five. Yet, several are attacking Palin on exactly that basis at the prospect of her being number 1 in line. I think that is an unfair double standard.
The video of her publicly congratulating secessionist traitors on their “good work” hasn’t been debunked so far as I know. Did I miss something?
Yes, if you think that video message in any way shows an endorsement of secessionism by Palin. :) Gimmee a break, Kolo. She said it in the context of "upholding the Constitution" of Alaska, and said nothing of the nutty beliefs of some of the AIP members. Remember that even the accuser admitted that not all AIP members are secessionists. It has been proved that Palin was never a member of the party, and so far no one has any evidence that she has EVER supported secession. I think the McCain vetting team would have been all over that one if there was a shred of truth to it. So would the drive-by media and they have appeared to drop the story. It's just another smear.
Am I wrong to be concerned about what appears to be comforting, if not necessarily condoning, treason?
Have you never seen a greeting like this before? These are pro forma and every politician does them. There were no particulars from Palin and these function as a basic welcome with a wink to spend lots of money in the community during the convention. It's a giant nothing. :)
Like Jefferson said, I tremble for my country when I realize that God is just.
LOL! That's a pretty good saying. :)
That's exactly what I said. With all that pressure on her she looked more relaxed and comfortable than almost anyone else I can think of. She made it look easy, and with a bum teleprompter no less. I was cheering all the way through. She really is a natural.
I liked the substance of her speech too. She made a good case that she is more credentialed to be President than Obama is and she showed toughness. She was great.
Last night I thought McCain was OK to pretty good, but no where near as good as Sarah was. She totally stole the show at this convention, which should be just fine for us conservatives. :)
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.