Posted on 10/15/2004 1:04:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Oh yeah?
Well, but what if they were, like, these really, really small angels, and maybe they were just, like, twisting - on one foot, slowly.
It could happen, ya know.
It's not unseemly at all to ask people how they are voting. In this most important election it's exactly the question we should be asking. Especially here at FreeRepublic.
FR is not a forum for religious discussion. It's something JR graciously allows. Most of us have other outlets for religious discussion and study. For me the religion forum is something to do while there's nothing happening on the news side.
And, if you know all on the forum (at least those xzins has asked) are Bush supporters, why don't you ask why some of them are afraid to discuss it?
Well maybe.
All I know is 30 is about all our church can handle on stage at Christmas...
Because this is a religion thread.
Ask away on any of the 1000's of political threads.
Clearly, you have artifically limited yourselves, temporally and spatially.
Logically, you have already supported as many as the script didn't call for.
Sounds like separation of thread and state.
We'll just have to disagree here. I don't mind xzins zeal on behalf of our President.
Many were cast, but few were choreographed.
What part of TULIP is about 'ingreience'?
Bear the pain.
It's only 2 more days until 7 PM PST.
Keep the context: a religion thread on a political website. We mix religion and politics around here.
But, let me be so bold as to suggest that I'd like to discuss with the undeclared on a thread about infants why they should consider an adult response to the election instead of that of an infant.
Simple question to the undeclared.
I've never cared too much for the gentlemen. He's a little too moderate for my taste. But I WILL NEVER vote for a Democrat and will do everything I can, short of marching for social causes ;O), to prevent Democrats from winning.
”You'd simply quote the passages that show Cornelius being regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.”
Act 11:15-17 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Cornelius received the Holy Spirit AFTER HE BELIEVED which was when PETER BEGAN SPEAKING TO HIM.
I’m saying Cornelius salvation experience shows: 1) he was a devout man; 2) an angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter; 3) Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men; 4) Peter preached to Cornelius; 5) Cornelius believed in the Lord Jesus; 6) the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius; 7) they were baptized.
You want to ignore steps 1-3 of the redemptive process. Step 1-We know Cornelius was devout doing good works but how is that possible since good works only come from God? Step 2-God’s angel was sent to Cornelius to illuminate what he must do. Step 3-God had to intervene to persuade Peter to preach the word of Christ
Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical not because Cornelius avoided walking under ladders but because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete. This isn’t a timing issue with God. It is a logical redemptive process. You just don’t recognize steps 1-3 in this process and what exactly they mean since they all entail God's direct involvement in the redemptive process.
What kind of dancing?
There is no other candidate in the race who can keep a democrat from winning. Obviously, the lesser parties are not a viable option this year (and seldom are.)
If you believe that God is in control and He will raise up who He wants, then you must believe that God wants either George W. Bush or Kerry to win. He would have had His hand in the rise of either.
Is there any possibility that the other 3rd parties have a chance? Not at all. We all know that.
Assuming, then, that God will have either Bush or Kerry, then you must rate Bush as the one who will promote a culture of life and religious freedom. With kerry you have a candidate who will promote abortion, cloning, homosexuality, and religious repression.
If you are certain that this is a time when God is deciding to refine His people in the fires of sickness and oppression, then vote for Kerry.
If you believe that you must decide for the best of your people based on biblical principles, then you will vote for the opportunity for life and religious freedom to flourish. You will vote for Pres. Bush.
If you're registered.
This is the only adult, non-infant, view on the subject.
I look at this slightly different. What else. :O)
It's far more complex than just Bush/Kerry. What happens if Bush wins but Congress switched back into Democrats hands. Or what happens if Kerry wins but Tom Dashcle (sp) loses his position? Far too many permutations in my mind.
I haven't a clue as to what God's plans are so I can only vote for the best possible choice which closely (and I use this loosely) resembles some sense of morality and lowering my taxes (kind of goes hand-in-hand). To me the races are increasingly boiling down to one issue-whether a candidate supports or rejects abortion.
Regardless of how I rate the candidates and vote God is the one who will ultimately make the decisions for His sovereign plan. It's like Jonah trying to decide whether to go to Tarshish or Niveveh. We can make the wrong decision but God is in control and will bring about His will. Whatever that is I will respect His decision.
And, yes, I'm registered and I vote in EVERY election. Even those where no one shows up.
Latest polls show Republicans leading in both branches of Congress. There will be an increase in the Senate.
Therefore, President Bush will be able to forcefully advance judicial appointments who oppose reading their own philosophy into our Constitution.
Starwind post #297: ”You'd simply quote the passages that show Cornelius being regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.”
HarleyD post #312: Act 11:15-17 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Cornelius received the Holy Spirit AFTER HE BELIEVED which was when PETER BEGAN SPEAKING TO HIM.
I challenged you to quote passages wherein Cornelius was regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.
Your answer was to quote and highlight Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm sure you know the difference between "before" and "after" (or "logically" maybe you don't?), but that didn't stop you from pretending yours was an intellectually honest answer.
I’m saying Cornelius salvation experience shows: 1) he was a devout man; 2) an angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter; 3) Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men; 4) Peter preached to Cornelius; 5) Cornelius believed in the Lord Jesus; 6) the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius; 7) they were baptized.
You want to ignore steps 1-3 of the redemptive process.
And now you concoct yet another process and artificially contrive to front-load it with 3 steps which you then claim I want to ignore (another strawman), because again you want to deflect attention away from steps 4-7 in which Cornelius first believed and then the Holy Spirit fell. But you spin steps 4 and 5 as if Cornelius was hearing and believing for the first time in Acts 11:15-17, when in fact Acts 10:1-2 record Cornelius' had heard of, feared, and prayed to, God and knew about Jesus ministry earlier, and then later in Acts 10:44 or Acts 11:15-17 Cornelius was as well hearing the gospel, and he believed it as well but it was not the beginning of his belief in God. Cornelius believed in Acts 10:1-2 which you spin as him being devout. Yes he was devout, but he was more than devout, he also had heard of God and feared God and prayed to God and he knew about Jesus ministry, all of which preceded his (likely) regeneration in Acts 10:44 or 11:15-17.
All of which I've stated before, and I don't need to restate it every time you invent a new process.
Harley, I have not ignored your processes. You know that. I have in fact attempted to analyze them, organize them and I have critiqued how poorly they were described. I didn't ignore them, I disected and disagreed with them. The new process you postulate now in your post #312, I haven't had a chance to ignore, this being my first response to your most recent post to me, and I'm not ignoring it either, now am I?. You knew all that but that didn't stop you from making the false charge that I ignore your processes.
How many cites and refutations of your arguments, and questions that I've posed to you, have you ignored?
Step 1-We know Cornelius was devout doing good works but how is that possible since good works only come from God?
Yet another in a long line of false premises from you. Many unregenerate people do good works, good works which may well have been prepared by God for the benefit of the receiver (not the 'worker') but unregenerate people do good works none the less. True, doing good works doesn't save them, and some will 'boast' in them and argue (mistakenly) they are 'good people' to whom God would not deny heaven, but they do good works nonetheless. Unregenerate people daily sacrifice their lives to save others, work 2 or 3 jobs to support their families, give of their time and money to charities - yes, without Jesus they're still lost, but it doesn't change the good works they have done.
And so in Acts 10:1-2 Cornelius was unsaved and unregenerate at the time he was giving alms, a good work perhaps even prepared by God, but nonetheless Cornelius was unregenerate when he did those good works, and Cornelius did it of his own free will and choosing. God did not work Cornelius' puppet strings and make him do it. Cornelius did that particular good work (the only specific work we know) because he had the belief, desire, and ability, and God gave him the opportunity foreknowing Cornelius would 'step up', but Cornelius did it of his own choosing while yet unregenerate.
Step 2-God’s angel was sent to Cornelius to illuminate what he must do. Step 3-God had to intervene to persuade Peter to preach the word of Christ
I didn't ignore these "steps" either. I've addressed their passages many times. I disagreed previously with your "terminology", which ill-defined terminology is still irrelevant to my argument, oft repeated lo these many posts, that believing follows hearing and preceeds regeneration or being sealed with the Holy Spirit. But then that is more of your deflection away from the argument which you have neither refuted and even implicitly affirmed when you cited Acts 11:15-17 as the response to my challenge to quote passages wherein Cornelius was regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.
And now we come to:
Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical not because Cornelius avoided walking under ladders but because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete. This isn’t a timing issue with God. It is a logical redemptive process. You just don’t recognize steps 1-3 in this process and what exactly they mean since they all entail God's direct involvement in the redemptive process.
Let me repeat your exact words: [your] comments about Cornelius getting hit ... are hypothetical ... because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete
Harley, you are not posing logical redemptive process as a hypothetical. You pose that as your serious argument to get Cornelius regenerated before he heard or believed. Hence, in your view, Cornelius not being killed prematurely is not hypothetical either but an actual result of 'protective shrouding' until the 'logical redemptive process' completes. More on this non-sequiter below.
Here is the background:
Starwind post #272:
One must argue from silence and assume (in support of ones doctrine) that Cornelius was first regenerated and then believed and then heard - and that at this point Acts 10:1 picks up the story. In fact, arguably, regeneration, renewing and sealing occurred when the Holy Spirit fell - if one were to overreach.
HarleyD post #273:
Oh really? I guess it’s important to support one’s doctrine over careful examination of the scriptures. Are you saying Cornelius was regenerated, believed and heard and then was re-regenerated? Or perhaps Cornelius wasn’t regenerated at the time of the angel and if a brick would have fallen on his head God would have said, “Shucks, there’s one that got away.”
Starwind post #274:
You are the one that seems to think scripture says Cornelius was regenerated, so why not help me out here and post it and highlight it?
I don't know. And I daresay neither do you. Or are angelic visits your proof of regeneration? In which case you still have not proved Cornelius was regenerated before he became God-fearing prayerful and knew about Jesus ministry, now have you? And if someone has not received an angelic visit then are they unregenerate? Have you received any angelic visits lately with audible commands?
HarleyD post #275:
[Starwind post #274] "You are the one that seems to think scripture says Cornelius was regenerated, so why not help me out here and post it and highlight it?"
Act 10:3-8 "About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, "Cornelius!" And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea." When the angel who was speaking to him had left, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were his personal attendants, and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa."
Rom 4:3 "For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." "
HarleyD post #293:
No conjecture, just fact. Once again I've seen nothing offered by you, Starwind or anyone else that would explain my original question about Cornelius dying between the time of meeting with the angel and meeting with Peter. Would he be saved? Starwind says no even though it was God's desire to bring Cornelius to Himself. What do you say?
Starwind-It's convenient for you (as well as others) to offer no solutions to these events but a tad disingenious when I explain it in a consistent manner with the theological views presented in this article and then you chastise me for my "fruit salad" theology. You have no way of explaining these events because your theological perception is based upon a flawed premise as illustrated by your response. I'm confident you would also be unable to explain how God could have appeared to Abraham in Genesis Chapter 12 and Abraham be justified in Chapter 15. It's the same situation only in the Old Testament.
HarleyD post #312 Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical
So, summarizing
- I (in #272) point out you're arguing from silence about when Cornelius was first regenerated.
- You (in #273) rhetorically argue Cornelius was regenerated prior to the Holy Spirit falling and pose the question what if a brick had hit Cornelius.
- I (in post #274) asked you where you think Cornelius was regenerated.
- You (in post #275) cite Acts 10:3-8, wherein there is no regeneration, no Holy Spirit, no preaching, just the angels visit. (Harley, you were arguing in post #275 that an angelic visit is regeneration or a sign of regeneration!!!)
- You further (in post #293) claim nothing has been offered by me or anyone to explain your original question about what if Cornelius were hit by a brick. You further argue I have no way to explain what if Cornelius were hit by a brick.
- And now (in your post #312) you claim it was a hypothetical. Yet you had mistakenly argued (in your hypothetical) Cornelius was regenerated when the angel visited, and you mistakenly cited Acts 10:3-8 as proof of Cornelius regeneration (ignoring the Holy Spirit falling in Acts 10:44 or Acts 11:15-17) but only admit now that "Cornelius received the Holy Spirit AFTER HE BELIEVED which was when PETER BEGAN SPEAKING TO HIM" so Cornelius was not regenerated during your hypothetical.
So, while you claim it was hypothetical, it was a false hypothetical since Cornelius was not regenerated when the angel visited (as you now admit), but you still demanded that everyone construct some kind of doctrine to explain a false hypothetical to your satisfaction!
And now you try to deflect that as well:
Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical not because Cornelius avoided walking under ladders but because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete. This isn’t a timing issue with God. It is a logical redemptive process. You just don’t recognize steps 1-3 in this process and what exactly they mean since they all entail God's direct involvement in the redemptive process.
Yet more word-salad without meaning. Truly, Harley, you theorize about angels dancing on pinheads.
If the redemption process were "logical" then Cornelius would already be saved ("logically") and it would not matter when or how he died because he'd die 'redeemed'. He would not need God's protective shrouding, would he? In fact, he wouldn't want it. The sooner he was accidently killed the sooner he'd get to heaven. There'd be no need to hear or believe and no need to be sealed with the Holy Spirit - redemption (and regeneration) all being "logical". If redemption is "logical", then redemption (being the end-point, logically, of a process that was thought of as temporal) is complete and always was complete - Cornelius is saved, mission accomplished - and so the rest of the process becomes moot, and hence protective shrouding to prevent a moot process from being preempted is likewise moot.
But seriously, if God's elect had a stripe painted down their backs so we could recognize them prior to regeneration (some are even getting hard to recognize after), then discussing such shrouding might be edifying - knowing whom to watch, but we don't know whom and we'll never know whom. But even if you could know whom, how would you explain the millions of God's elect and saved who experience the most severe trials, including martyrdom? Where is/was God's protective shrouding for them?
Rom 9:20-21 The thing molded will not say to the molder, "You can skip this molding stuff since, logically, I'm already a vessel for honorable use" will it?
Well, it very much is a timing issue with God as well as with us. God created a space-time continuum and created us inside it. He sustains us within it. He is aware of the time constraints He imposed on us and He inspired His word to be written using temporal concepts that conote a time sequence of events, including a lot of history, prophecy, and time-sensitive instructions (ex: Mat 10:19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say") and consequences (Heb 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment).
Further, Paul taught many time-sensitive principles including that belief follows hearing (which man must do inside time) and precedes regeneration (which the Holy Spirit - coming from outside time - does to a man who is still inside time).
So while you might argue that God "logically" views regeneration as "done" in a timeless eternal sense, the prerequisites (to hear and believe) nonetheless are on man to fulfill in a timely human sense, and then regeneration and the Spiritual fruits therefrom likewise become evident, also in a timely human sense.
While God knows the end from the beginning and sees all in an eternal timeless perspective we, His creation, do not, and we (constrained within God's temporal creation) are taught:
Eph 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Sealing with the Holy Spirit (scripturally, part of regeneration - Tit 3:5-7, 2Co 1:21-22, Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30) is a pledge to us of our inheritence. A pledge that offers us little or no hope if it is merely "logical" in God's perspective and not experienced by us temporally. The gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit, and the peace which transcends understanding, in the believer is the temporal evidence of that sealing and regeneration. If regeneration were merely "logical" in God's perspective and not temporal in ours, the Holy Spirit's pledge or promise of our inheritance would be absent in us.
But the Holy Spirit's regeneration is in fact a temporal event in believers. Scripture teaches it and we actually experience it. Your attempt to deflect the argument into a "logical" context away from the biblical spatial/temporal context has no basis in scripture or reality.
But that hasn't stopped you yet, has it?
My side of this 'discussion' (such as it was) has required considerable time and effort to reread our posts and check scripture as well as to compose and proof read my arguments. That you don't go to similar lengths is ok, but your inclination to refute straw men rather than my arguments, and to distort scripture and English rather than address issues factually is not edifying, so I will desist.
Think about others who read the views you so haphazardly conceive yet so adamantly defend, such as "logical redemption". Have you considered the consequences, Harley, if others were to believe what you insist (without scriptural support) is truth? Do you think God sees your arguments as inconsequential?
STANDING OVATION!!!!!!
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.