| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/19/2004 7:52:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
This thread has 183 abuse reports. It’s now locked. Maybe you can all get along better on the next thread. |
Posted on 03/10/2004 9:37:27 PM PST by malakhi
That's a good one, it was my 4th choice after Companion, Scofield and the McArthur study bibles.
I read the vs , then the cross references, checked out the superior letters, superior number and the annotations. Tired by then. I stopped and just read the chapter and came back and looked at the study guide all together. One vs at a x wasn't cutting it. I know now how the preacher can do an entire sermon on one verse:') Interesting Greek and Hebrew stuff though.
Oh for sure. I know why it's called "bible study" now. :-)
Quoting Strong's as a source for a theological argument, even one as poorly conceived as yours, is something like reading the Enquirer for news. Interesting. And able to be twisted into anything the reader would like.
Why do you keep ignoring and avoiding what the lexicon clearly says WAGES and REWARDS means?
You don't seem to quite grasp the use of a lexicon. And, to be precise, Strong's is in no way a lexicon. The writers of the New Testament, contrary to popular opinion, did not have a copy of Strong's at their right hand from which they composed their theological prose. Strong's is a reflection of the interpretation of the Bible of a particular person. It is not the secret decoder ring for theology.
I promise I am not laughing right now. Honest, I'm not. Ok, a little. But just a bit.
And Calvinists say it doesn't matter what you do. Either God chose you or not!!! Have at it!!!
Wait a second. Is that really what you believe as Calvinists? Or have I portrayed a hyperbolic image of your beliefs to more easily defeat them in debate? Say it ain't so mammy. Say it ain't so!!!
I believe that his downward spiral could have been stopped if y'all were not so busy friendshipping and missing the guy getting led down the legalistic path to perdition.
So which is it? Is it your theology or Mack's? They sound a lot alike in the end. You think Mack's silly for attempting to try to convert someone. You then chastise him for not trying hard enough or in the right fashion.
What happened to God's sovereignty? Can it be foiled by talk about sports, movies and Harleys? It must be a fragile thing indeed.
And note that nowhere in Scripture is salt described as you described it. It is described as flavor.
If you notice this is not a salvation verse , nor does it say that this will save anyone.
Really. Come on. So heathens glorify God without any change in their lives? What does that mean? Of course, it means nothing other than these verses do not fit into your grid and must be summarily dismissed as "off the grid."
Someone should tell Peter. 2 Peter 3:9 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.
Now don't give me some half-formulated spin on this verse. I need all-out, both-barrels-blazing-dead-on-you-did-not-read-what-you-just-thought-you-read spin. I know you will not disappoint.
Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: 20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
Odd word there. "choose" The clot thickens
This is only in an economical sense of the sacrifice of Christ. It does not make the sacrifice of Christ ineffective in reality. If I flip a switch in my house, the light comes on. If I don't flip the switch, is the electricity ineffective? Or just not activated? Analogical arguments always have weaknesses and this one is no different, but it points at the meat of the weakness of your argument. Namely, the lack of response on the part of the sinner to the sacrifice of Christ in no way lessens the efficaciousness (that's probably not a word, but you know what I mean) of the sacrifice.
If man can acquire his own salvation, then God's mercy is limited to what man allows God to show him.
This is a nice painting with broad brush of Arminianism, but does not reflect well the overall idea. Acceptance of a gift given is acquisition. But it is not acquisition by work. It is acquisition by acquiescence. And if you think accepting a gift is work, I'd hate to see you on a Saturday work day at the church.
I understand them well enough not to post ill-conceived straw versions of them (except in jest).
Which was the point of my post.
I would accept that as legitimate in your case, but your notion has been echoed by Rn, ksen and countless others. First we are told that God is absolutely sovereign. Then we are told that Arminians and Romanists don't try hard enough. Or that they spend too much time "fellowshipping with darkness" and that this mucks God's sovereignty all up. Do you see why it's confusing?
Call me butter
So you make all your decisions with your eyes closed and a bag over your head?
Your view of salvation relies on its acquisition by man's choice and not God's. It is acquisition by man weighing the merits of his options, assessing whether or not to accept God's "offer" of salvation.
It is acquisition by man's intuitive faculties, his higher judgment, his profound piety, his well-stocked library, his superior discretion, his smarter hunch. Nor the number of indulgences he can afford.
All this wrestling with the decision to "accept" God's "offer" cleverly leaves the ultimate fate of mankind's soul up to man and his well-reasoned choice, and not to God and His eternal decree.
But I think God demands the final answer on just about everything, whether we want to give it to Him or not.
It is all of Him, and none of us. That's why it's called "Irresistible Grace" by those who know their sorry brains and puny decisions have nothing to do with it.
That's why it's a "gift," unmerited and nonrefundable.
My advice to you would be to read Scripture with a more discerning eye. Replace all those "me's" with "Thee's."
And try to cut down on the exclamation points. If it's not in the words, pictures won't help.
Now do you see why no one wants to play with you?
Shoo!
Very nice!
Where have I ever posted anything like that?
My first bible was a Thompson-Chain Reference bible, KJV of course ;^), with no footnotes. My second bible was an Old Scofield with notes. I found that the notes kept distracting me so I ended up going back to my Thompson.
I thought you were happy to be the COTD (or whatever)?
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.