| 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
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
You're a funny old coot. Seriously. I rarely use exclamation points. They were mocking yours. Guess you missed some of the sarcasm.
As for "little substance," I've given as much substance as you have. And I'll take your response as a non-answer to any of the points I made. Thanks for chatting.
No. Wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. It is acquisition by simple drawing of the Holy Spirit and acquiescing to His call upon one's life. It is not a "weighing of option" or a "higher judgment." It is simply bending our knee to the call of God. You continue to paint the doctrine with a misunderstanding eye, either through ignorance or naivete.
You would be much better off admitting you were wrong. This denial of obvious Scriptural references does great damage to your reputation as a Biblicist.
They did have to do with God being glorified in HIS people .
Close, but wrong. I would wager you wrestled with how to word this for a while to minimize the damage of heathens glorifying God. The fact is that in one of the passages that it is evildoers who end up glorifying God, which is not at all "God being glorified in HIS people."
Secondly, it obviously says that a wife can be a witness simply by how she lives her life and that the unbelieving husband can "without the word be won by conversation." Of course, conversation in the KJV means lifestyle. You know this very well, but will dodge it here as it does not fit your paradigm.
Then the negative example. There is clearly a statement that one can cause a person to stumble. See the OT usage of the word stumbling for more illumination on what this means. And then Paul follows this by saying that he tries to please everyone in every way so that everyone might be saved. Sounds positively seeker-sensitive, doesn't it? But again, doesn't fit the paradigm so out it goes.
And the last passage was in reference to the "light fellowshiping with darkness." But you knew that as well.
For a man to think one is saved by HIS walk is contrary to the word of God , that says clearly that it is the word of God , that brings one to faith , not our feeble works that bring a man to faith and salvation.
I agree that one is not saved by his/her walk. But the word of God is exemplified in action. If we give a glass of water in His name, if we feed the poor, if we visit the sick, etc. But you've read James and you know this as well.
God is jealous for His name
Sometimes your over-preaching comments drift into obscurity and it does so here. This is nice preaching as us Pentecostals say but I'm not sure how it relates to what we're discussing. Is someone who strives to live a Godly example and be kind to others not showing the proper respect due God's name? If not, then what on earth did you mean? I'm not quite sure you yourself know. But you believe whatever it is you mean, which is half the battle.
Finally, to clear up any misconception, I believe that preaching the Gospel is part of evangelism. In fact it will comprise the bulk of the "heavy lifting" of evangelism. Without the message of the Gospel, we are little more than penny-ante moralists. It is, however, not the only way that the Gospel, the good news of the Kingdom, is revealed, taught or preached. Clearly, our lives are a witness to others. To deny that is to deny sense and sanity. But that's never stopped anyone on this board.
This is a fair sentiment. It was unfortunately posted in the context of Steven leaving the faith, some people apparently being excited that this demonstrated some sort of anemia on the Gospel-quotient on this thread, and some general nastiness. So, your post looked more offensive to me than it actually was. I apologize for anything I took out of your intent which was not there.
I was in the Marines with a young Jew from Miami who decided to get circumcised, and believe me he was very, very, quiet for almost a week. :(
JH:)
I like that one bass.
JH:)
When will you quit talking out of both sides of your mouth? Is God sovereign or do some mealy-mouthed lukewarm ecumenical wanna-bes throw a big ol monkey wrench in the plans of the Almighty?
Makes me think back to Abraham coming back and telling his household (which had to include plenty of adult male servants) "I have some good news and some 'other' news"
"The Lord has renewed his promise to me today!"
But there is this one other thing.......
And may I suggest that if one selects option #5 on your list of definitions rather than the one with the verses behind it written by a Calvinist then your whol argument falls apart. Are you taking classes from ET in using a lexicon?
I thought that pretty much covered all the bases too. :-)
I'm an altruist.
As long as it doesn't affect me.
You stole my followup post before she had a chance to feed me the straight line Bass.
How do we KNOW 8b was invented by a Calvinist? (after all, Strong's does claim that it is what is intended here)
Pretty simple. Could the Greek word have possibly had this meaning prior to Christ? Of course not, since there was no "collection of believers". There can obviously be no prior Greek writings with this usage.
So it is either a new usage created by the formation of Christianity (as with agape' love) or it is interpreted in to fit a particular theology (and is thus entirely circular - we know the verse means "this" because the word means "8b" and we know that because the verse means "this").
So that usage can only be of even minor validity if Mom can show some other 1st,2nd,3rd century Greek usage of the word to clearly refer to the elect. I'm not aware of any such writings, and all of the Scripture on point (mostly John, but a couple Corinthians verses) begs the issue - you have to assume Calvinism prior to reading the verse.
Naw. I got fixed as an infant. I've been quiet because I think the argument is silly. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Simple as that. I'm just entertained by all the little gods trying to decide for Him.
Highly unlikely. That would be child abuse (and probably "micro-surgery" beyond the skill of most).
Looks pretty good. Doc did a good job. :-)
Let's not go there. Read the posts again...
"Fixed" means a vasectomy... not circumcision.
I rather doubt you can get that done as an infant. But I won't doubt your honesty if you say it's the truth (I don't want to go THERE again either).
What... did you think "micro surgery" was some kind of dirty joke?
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.