| 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 |
Yes.
BTW, why aren't you opposing ET with the same vehemence you use with myself, RnMom, Dr. E., and the rest?
A serious question Mack.....Will we be free to reject God in Heaven ?
I think that it is interesting that the scriptures don't address this point ... perhaps because it is not necessary.
I look at the issue of predestination in the sense that God has setup a process (and context) for the production of human beings.
This process is influenced by our nature (genetic makeup), nuture, life experiences, and personal interventions by God.
It is a process which, I would argue, operates fairly automatically, but one into which, also, ... God chooses to make interventions at given points.
Ultimately, at the end of this process are processed human beings which either wish to align and dwell with God or who wish not to align with and dwell with God.
Satan is an example of one who, in hsi ultimate makeup, does not desire to align with and to dwell with God.
So (according to such a scenario), some of us are made (through nature/nuture/experience/God's intervention, allowance/etc.) to want to be with God.
On the other hand, others are made (through nature/nuture/experience/God's intervention, allowance/etc.) who will never want to be with God.
What I am proposing is that wanting to be with God (or not) is somethings which I see as intrinsic to our individual being.
According to such a paradigm, our ultimate disposition (accepting/rejecting) is unchangeable.
Therefore, having once chosen God, we would never reject Him.
I'm putting this out here to be provocative (as Soothing Dave would say).
These are, simply, my thoughts on the matter.
Those of us who do not accept the inspiration of the Christian scriptures can have a favorable opinion of Jesus, without assuming that everything said about him, and everything attributed to him, is 100% accurate.
This also has its precedence in the Old Testament....
She and Steven are not one of the "ELECT" they have heard the gospel and have rejected it, the question is what do you continue to get them to accept it if they are not one of the "ELECT" you not quite brainwashed enough yet and falling back into your old beliefs?
Their of no harm to anyone here, everyone knows what they believe and reject it, could it be maybe your afraid that you might be seduced by their teachings as you have a history of that sort of thing happening and thats why you're kicking against the goad so hard, since they are clearly not one of the "ELECT?"
I know I may seem harsh to you, but I assure you its just the calvinist love that I share with you. BigMack
Then you have to pick and choose what to believe is accurate because the same sources you use to have a favorable opinion of Jesus, as a man, are the same sources where He claims Diety for Himself and that says without Him there is no approaching the Father.
Yehoshua did a lot more than tell people to repent and keep His (not the) commandments. BTW, that's an odd thing for a prophet to do isn't it? Claim that God's commandments are his own?
Very good point!
God chose Moses to be His spokesman. Moses didn't want to do the talking. God didn't compel Moses to do it. Rather, He said "okay, I'll have Aaron do that".
As far as having chosen the people of Israel, God didn't compel them to obey their side of the covenant. He promised both rewards for obedience, and punishment for failure to obey. But He left the choice up to them.
And the Israelites freely chose to accept the covenant.
Go near, and hear all that the LORD our God will say; and speak to us all that the LORD our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it. (Deuteronomy 5:27)
He also said:
Mark 3:
[35] Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."
This is also meant literally isn't it?
President John F. Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner". He also meant it literally didn't he?
Yes, that is absolutely correct. I have no problem with that.
because the same sources you use to have a favorable opinion of Jesus, as a man, are the same sources where He claims Diety for Himself
Now with this I do not necessarily agree. There are no extant original manuscripts. There are large numbers of variant texts. I do not assume that the present text is identical to that written by the original author.
ET has had the gospel given to her every way it can be given on here, she rejects it plain and simple, I KNOW where she stands, and I have left her to her choice.
As far as calling calvinist brothers in Christ you should be aware of the difference of error and false teachers, their are some who are in error and some of them are false teachers.
BigMack
Cause ET is out of this world, while you are still grounded. She needs to be knocked off her horse, you only require a stern talking to. ;-)
SD
Another:
If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
I was a member of a church that got torn apart by closet calvinists that were working undercover to take over the church, I've seen first hand how you calvinists love the flock, calvinsim is a cancer on the church and needs to be exposed fot the lie that it is.
BigMack
Maybe either or both can be considered child abuse. ;-)
I remember you posting about that once. Those Calvinists were wrong in what they did to that church.
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.