Where in the Constituion do you see any thing that prevents the government from nationalizing the oil wells, or the auto manufacturing, or the health care industry, or anything else "to provide for the General Welfare"?
You mean, again?
Posted on 07/22/2010 4:57:16 PM PDT by mdittmar
That seems like a mighty stretch given the Matthew was a tax collector, Simon was a zealot etc etc.
As an aside, do you own firearms?
I do own firearms. And have owned pickups. And fly the flag from time to time. And generally vote republican. And attend a conservative church. And support Israel. And think tax cuts are a good idea. And think the GWOT is being bumbled by the current administration. And laughed really hard at Hitler as Hillary on YouTube.
And I voluntarily chose to become an American citizen after studying the Constitution and swearing to uphold it. Have you ever sworn to uphold the Constitution? Under oath? On pain of penalty? In front of a federal judge and federal marshalls?
And if I understand your first question, no. Soviet style socialism, as I understand it, involves confiscation and redistribution of property with no meaningful right of redress, where dissent is dealt with by brutal, inhumane force.
I don’t advocate government enforced common ownership of property. I only proclaim that those who knew Jesus better than I do believed in voluntary (as voluntary as yielding to the Holy Spirit can be) common ownership of property. It seems to me if we lived that way there would be less temptation for the government to try to do it for us.
What are you talking about. Who is talking about illegal immigration? What crime do you think I justify? Are you sure you are on the right thread?
I did not ask if you advocated socialism. I asked if you advocated an interpretation of the Constitution that empowers Congress to implement it.
If you advocate that interpretation, and the election of public officials and appointment of jurists that hold that interpretation then you share the responsibility of having it come to pass.
Saying "But..but I didn't advocate acutally doing it" does not absolve you of responsibility.
Actions and decisions have consequences, and you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If those consequences are unintended, you bear the responsibility for not considering the unintended consequences, and doubly so if they were pointed out to you and you refused to consider them.
Where in the Constituion do you see any thing that prevents the government from nationalizing the oil wells, or the auto manufacturing, or the health care industry, or anything else "to provide for the General Welfare"?
Where in the Constituion do you see any thing that prevents the government from nationalizing the oil wells, or the auto manufacturing, or the health care industry, or anything else "to provide for the General Welfare"?
You mean, again?
Isn’t the basis of socialism that the government is granted the authority and responsibility to provide everything “for the general welfare” of the people? A rose by any other name......
You ready to stand up and say the you want everyone here agree to hand that power over to Obama and Pelosi?
You violated Godwin's law, so you lose.
The way I read your post, you were making an point in addressing illegal immigration in your post. Whether or not that was the case, your points are baseless and warped.
lol.
think what you want. if you don’t understand what I have been saying, you won’t. but I am not saying what you are trying to make me say.
No, I am telling you what you are proposing will get turned into in Congress if we agree to let them have that power.
Without the framework and context of original intent, the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean. Your "welcome to the 21st century" argument is the essence of the "living document" philosophy of interpretation.
You disregard the historical record and dismiss any notion that the Constitution needs to be interpreted based on the original intent of the people that wrote and ratified it by claiming that "modern transportation and communication" have made their understanding of the document irrelevant, so there's no point in even bothering to look at what they had to say about it.
That may be true, we won't ever know, because no one has a free will.
John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..."
So here is the riddle:
John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,nor of the will of man, but of God.
On one hand, the Free Will Advocate looks at this passage, sees "tho those who believe in His name" and says "See, all one has to do is simply choose to believe", except to make that statement, one is required to ignore the rest of the statement that says that man's will explicitly has nothing to do with believing. So how does one choose to believe?
Joshua 24:15 is a very good passage to illustrate the lack of "free will". Ask yourself the question, given the remarkable contrast between blessings and cursings, which of the two did they choose?
Remember, you have a few things at work here. First, the people Joshua addressed were those who survived the forty years in the desert. If you recall, the adults in the exodus saw the things the LORD did, yet they rebelled and worshipped the golden calf. It was their lack of faith that kept that generation out of the Promised Land. This generation was the ones to whom the unconditional promise given in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and extended in the Palestinian Covenant (Deut 30:1-10) would be partially filled. Joshua 24:15 was the conditional covenant of works given to Moses. As you can see after one chapter in Scripture, (Judges 2), the people who swore an oath to obey God were so disobedient that an Angel of the LORD visited them and laid a curse upon them. So much for that alleged "free will choice to choose blessings".
I think that it is pretty clear from the bulk of Scripture, that Israel consistently voiced the choice to follow God, but in their deeds it is abundantly clear that their words were empty and they perpetually followed after other idols.
Which is the point I believe that those in the Free Will Cabal are missing, while one can make all the noise about choosing God, outside of regeneration, the actions are all in following the path of sin. Calvinists don't dismiss the act of "Choosing Christ" as being legitimate, for all who come to repentance do indeed make that "Choice". Where the disagreement lies is in the ability for the natural man to make that choice.
Your entire premise is based upon a statement given to a people under a conditional covenant of works when we are operating under the unconditional convenant of grace. Not exactly comparing apples to apples. And even if we were under a works dispensation, the empirical evidence loudly shouts that even though the blessings and cursings are well defined and promptly metered out, the natural man keeps earning the curses while desiring the blessings.
Your statement also seems to ignore Paul's struggle with sin articulated in chapter seven of his epistle to the Church in Rome.
(vv15-20) "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."
It seems that whatever the mechanism, the actions were not in sync with the stated desires - no matter what was allegedly "willed", the actions ended up being sinful. Seem familiar to the Israelites back there in the days of Joshua?
Let me propose a thought experiment. According to Scriptures here is a thumbnail sketch of the "will" of the natural man:
So given these truths, how does one who hates God, hates righteousness, loves sin, doesn't seek after God, can't do anything righteous, can't understand the Bible, considers it all foolish, is blinded by both God and Satan so that we can't understand, and would prefer to be crushed by rocks than bow to God - HOW does that particular Free Will somehow lift itself by the bootstraps, repent and love God with all their heart, soul and mind? Answer: It has never been accomplished by man for it is impossible. A man who hates God will not spontaneously love God outside of an externally originated transformation. That transformation is called "regeneration", it is performed by the Paraclete, and is dispensed by God's Grace to a divinely chosen people determined in eternity past by God.
If you apply that template to the above description of man, then and only then can a man's eyes be opened to accept and embrace the truth and love of God.
Hos 11:4 "I drew them with gentle cords, With bands of love, And I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them."
And finally...
Ezekiel 36:26-27 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."
They refuse to make a declarative statement.
Because they are fishing and don’t know.
Lets recap:
Last week: Tea Party is racist.
This week : The Tea Party is unbiblical.
Which is strange coming from the serration of church and state crowd.
Next week: In Lenin’s tomb they may have found a Tea Party manifesto signed by Sarah Palin.
But regarding the verses you cited, I will (lol) in closing point out however, that even Paul seemed to believe he had a will: "For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
And this, in light of the last verse you quoted -- "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." -- makes it look like Paul remained "unregenerate".
Clearly even Paul slipped up and yielded to the sin nature. How frequently, he does not say. Question is, did he in moments of weakness choose to yield to his sin nature, or did God will (cause, force) him to sin on those occasions? It can be only one or the other. Heaven forbid it be the latter.
Just saying. My best regards to you, however!
Born a Pharisee, Saved as an Arminian, Sanctified into Calvinism. Apparently someone convinced me to drop the Pelagian error. It can happen.
I think we agree that man has a will, where the difference lies is in the issue of captivity of the will. The Bible uses extensive bondage/slave language when it says "slave to sin and death" and "cannot serve two masters". Pelagians deny the spiritual bondage alltogether, Arminians believe in a half-way house of spiritual bondage.
But yes, Pelagius vs Augustine, Erasmus vs Luther, Remonstrants vs Council of Dort, Taylor vs Edwards, Hodge vs MacArthur, Hunt vs White. There will always those who deny or diminish God's Sovereignty and the Doctrines of Grace, and those who will defend the Gospel.
The question I posed is the check-mate question. It is not possible to answer it synergistically without denying all the claims the Scriptures make regarding the Will of man. Its now up to fifteen years since I first asked the question beginning in a usenet thread, and it has never been answered.
To me the checkmate question is the origin of sin. If God didn’t make angels and men free moral agents, then Lucifer did not rebel of his own will (for he had none). That would mean that God forced him to sin. And that simply cannot be.
“Seriously? That's where you think this is headed? I don't, but if I am deemed worthy to suffer for Christ's sake, shouldn't I rejoice? That's what it says in my Bible.”
Once again, it is not about you or me.
That is an interesting perspective. Let me ask you this, how do you resolve:
Ex 4:21-22 And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.and we read:
Ex 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.David had an phrase in an imprecatory psalm:
Ps 69:27 Add iniquity to their iniquity, And let them not come into Your righteousness.
Not wanting to put words in your mouth, yet it seems to me that you are suggesting that if you were put in to Adam's place, that you would never have sinned. Or is it only a matter of time that you would have sinned as your "choice" could be approximated by throwing dice, and eventually you would succumb.
I don't think that you are gaining anything by suggesting that angels have some sort of free moral agency either since it would seem that one act of rebellion is sufficient to merit eternal condemnation. In that model, one would expect a continual draining of the heavens, a cosmic attrition as angels one by one choose incorrectly and make that eternally fatal choice. Could you imagine the problems if Gabriel or Michael exercised some "free will" in an inopportune moment, defected and joined leagues with Be'ezlebub?
If they eternally never disobey, we are left with only musing about a hypothetical "free will" based on zero evidence. The fact that the fall of Satan and one third of the angels immediately followed by the fall of Adam & "that woman" (she wasn't named until some time after the Fall) took place in one day (the seventh) and since then there has been no new angelic depravity suggests a Pharaoh like hardening. If you say that given the same circumstance as Adam you would not have sinned, I can only ask, are you somehow better than Adam - he who was made directly by the hand of God and given every advantage possible? Personally, I would probably have sprinted to that tree as fast as "that woman".
I know we are way off topic, but I enjoy your thoughts on this matter, and in the civil way that you have kept it.
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.