Posted on 02/17/2002 11:35:16 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Actually you guys met me last year..is that a replay?
Please don't just fly off the handle at me.
I did not fly off the handle. I once again stated where I was coming from and asked why I should listen to you when you continue to insult - this was not the first time. Then you implore me to show some Christian charity while showing little of your own.
As I've said, I'm sure you're secure in your beliefs. And I'm sure you're passionate about. But you're also prideful and arrogant. That's where you lose your credibility with me.
I'm out of here tonight to watch the rest of the women's figure skating finals. I may be back tomorrow. Maybe not.
Had I quoted that verse during Quiz night as a young Episcopalian boy, I might have caused a riot.
Ward, this 1 Co verse supports the teaching about the prevenient grace of God.
It is further supported by John 1:9 -- 9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world;
The prevenient grace of God enlightens every man via the spirit of God so that all know of the choice before them. Rom 2 speaks of the applicability of this everyone....even before Christian evangelization reaches their area.
"But how do you think you'll get in at the gate?" inquired Christian. "For you may find some difficulty there."
"As other people do," said Ignorance.
"But what do you have to show at that gate in order for it to be opened to you?" asked Christian
"I know my Lord's will," said Ignornace, "and I've lived a good life. I pay every man what I owe him; I pray, fast, pay tithes, and give offerings; and I've left my country to go where I'm now going."
Then Christian answered, "But you didn't come in at the Narrow Gate that is at the beginning of this path. You came in there, through that crooked lane. I fear, therefore, that whatever you may think of yourself, when the day of reckoning comes you will be charged with being a thief and a robber instead of getting admittance into the City."
"Gentlemen," replied Ignorance, "you are absolute strangers to me. I don't know you. Be content to follow the religion of your country, and I will follow that of mine. I hope all will be well...."
When Christian saw that the man was wise in his own eyes, he said to Hopeful in a whisper, "'There is more hope for a fool than for him.'" He continued and said, "'Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is.'"
I have asked you to refrain from posting to me. I will ask that you stop pinging me as well.
Everything you say above is beneath contempt and you pretend to distance yourself from it with petty linguistic Clintonisms.
You have been bitter, divisive, hateful, accusatory, demeaning, and unchristian. I believe that is in some circles THE definition of demonic.
Personally, I think you have a screw loose. I repeat: do not post to me; do not ping to me. I will do the same with you.
How? If all men are born with the total amount of grace necessary so that the things of God are not foolishness to them why are so many fools? It everyman is born with the total amount of grace necessary to hear and respond to the gospel why is God's grace so ineffective?
Mom, I don't understand your questions. Can you expand on them. I won't answer until tomorrow 'cause I'm going to bed.
I have a better way to read the verse. It's really simple. It says that the natural man--obviously referring to the unregenerate sinner--cannot receive the things of God. If God grants prevenient grace to everyone, as Wesley speculated, the verse is necessarily banal, brother. (I'm trying to avoid saying that your reading is trite [grin]!)
Think about what I just said. I'm afraid that I'm correct.
Now, if my reading (it's not even an interpretation, brother) of 1 Corinthians 2:14 is correct, then we suddenly have explanations of John 3:5, John 6:37, John 6:44, John 8, John 10, John 17, Acts 13:48, Romans 9, 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5--and a zillion other verses which don't make any sense under your system.
Now, I think that's significant. God is obviously saying that He is utterly sovereign in determining who will receive the favor of saving faith.
You need to trust Him in this, not call Him an unfair monster. He is the Potter, you are the clay. You deserve nothing from Him anyway.
Matthew 7:1-5.
Let's shorten it.
Those he foreknew he predestined = God knew those who ENDOWED WITH FREE CHOICE would choose him. Those who would choose him he predestined. Universal opportunity was an operant principle in God's mind AS HE FOREKNEW"
X, thats really nice, BUT, that is not what these texts say. These texts say nothing to the effect that the foreknowledge of God means he knew man would choose him. It simply is not there. You are making it up out of thin air. Your adding this to the text. There isn't even the hint in these passages that we choose him. There is no scripture which speaks of God's foreknowledge and uses these words. You have shown again, that you are changing the definitions of these words to fit your theology.
I understand the need for you to do this, X. For if God's foreknowledge doesn't mean what you say it means, then indeed predestination is Biblical. You need it to mean this or your whole theology crumbles. But the fact is, X, "foreknowledge" in no way implies God knowing what we would do and then predestinating that decision. That doesn't even make any sense! Listen to yourself. "God new that we would someday choose him, so he chose us" That's akin to having your cake and eating it too.
What I attempted to show you in my last post, X, is that "foreknowledge" when used in other places in the New Testament makes no sense if we apply your definition to this word. To illustrate this absurdity, I quoted 1 Peter 1:20 which uses the very same word! I then tried to apply your definition to this word. Did God's foreknowing Christ's work mean, as your logic would require, that God knew Christ would choose him so He chose Christ. That is so rediculous even you admitted that is not the proper meaning. Well, X, if it is not the proper meaning there, how can it be the proper meaning in Romans 8:29,30?
Hint...do a study on the root word of "foreknow": know; ginosko (Strong's 1097)-many definitions, but which one applies. Obvious, in Romans 8 is God's relationship with the believer. You and I can agree on this, I think. I would think, then, to resolve what this means, we would go to Scripture and look to see if there are any other uses of "foreknow" (proginosko) or it's root "know" (ginosko). Not suprisingly, we can find such verses:
1 Corinthians 8:3 "But if man love God, the same is known of him" Awkward reading so I will quote my greek interlinear "but if anyone love God, he is known by him". This is not saying here, "but if anyone love God, God knew man would love him". It simply says, "he is known by God".
John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." Again, a bit awkward, so I will again quote from my greek interlinear, "I am the shepherd good; and I know those that [are] mine, and am known of those that [are] mine.". Is Christ claiming he "knows the choices of his sheep"? Choice isn't even an issue here. He simply knows them. But this, as the previous text I cited is ambiguous? What does it mean to "know". Well, all we need to do is go only one verse more in John 10: John 10:15 "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father..." (emphasis mine). Here we have the key. To "know" means and implies a deep personal understanding and relationship. Christ "knows" us. He has a deep understanding, knowledge and relationship with us just as Christ "knows" the Father and the Father "knows" Christ. They have a mutual deep understanding, knowledge and relationship of each other. So, we can now easily see what pro (before) ginosko (know) means in this description of the relationship of God to the believer. He before the foundation of the world had a deep understanding, knowledge and relationship to us before we were even created and necessarily BEFORE we knew him. The rest flows easily from here:
Those he deeply and intimately knew as his sheep, he predestined, those he predestined, he called, those he called he justified, and those he justified he also glorified.
So wonderful is this message, God knew me personally before the foundations of the world. I was considered his sheep, his possession before the world was created. How wonderfully humbling and exhilerating this message is that I need do nothing to earn my salvation. It is sealed by him. I am his.
Glory to God in the Highest!
Jean
He doesn't does he? So it is just me that he does? The below is the email I received from him. That is your mentor!
Look, I don't regard you as regenerate. And I do propose to ignore you from now on. I won't even read your e-mails.
Well, Paul sure deceived that jailor when he said 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' He made it too easy
I have been there FtD.. You may not believe it is a problem in the church (even the one I attend now) but it is.
The problem is no absolute authority (the Holy Bible, AV1611) and Pastors who will not tell the truth to their people, and people who will not listen because it might offend them. How different from the days of Jonathen Edwards and his 'the sinner in the hands of an Angry God' when people were fainting in their seats. We are a people who are soft and effeminate
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of truth (2Tim.3:7)
Read Jonah and see what God feels about His creation. Jonah was a good Calvinist, waiting for the people to be destroyed(you get them God, you show them who is Sovereign!) And all the people had to do was REPENT, now how about that! Interesting selection of OT events ...I think it proves that God is sovereign and His plan HIS way will be accomplished ..There is none of this thing where God keeps a back up plan if you (in your free will) refuse...God showed Jonah who was Sovereign..no back up plan needed
Well, it does show that God is sovereign God and as a Sovereign God He wanted those people saved! Now, the Calvinists can sulk all they want about that fact, but it is God who wants to save man, despite the philosphical speculations of Augustine and Calvin. What saith the Scritures!
I have told doc myself that often it is the medical professionals that are the last to realize when they themselves are in need of professional help.
doc is such a hypocrite in his reply to you, #592. He says do not judge and cast out the beam from your own eye first, yet he does not hesitate to insinuate with every new poster who disagrees with him that they are unregenerate, hateful toward God, and under demonic influence.
I have had my eye on doc for the last 20 months, and he gives every indication that he will continue this abusive and even predatory behavior until he is banned again.
How long shall we let this go on without inviting Jim Robinson to do whatever he thinks is best?
Once again, another bible verse doesn't mean what it says. You can argue with the bible all you like. I will take the bible. If Peter was talking about a wholly spiritual thing, there would be no reason to mention dirt, which is removed by water.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."
This isn't even referring to Baptism at all. This is talking about regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which must happen before one believes. You have fallen in the same error about which Jesus chides Nicodemus.
And again! Jesus mentions the Spirit, and water. To say Jesus didn't mean water when He said it is no less silly than saying He didn't mean the Spirit when He said it. Nicodemus missed both entirely because he got hung up on "born."
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
Considering your other errors, I don't expect you to understand what this is saying.
And again! It seems my greatest "error" is believing the bible.
The bible is full of symbols and symbolic acts. The entire Law of Moses was a symbol to teach people about Christ, and people were executed for breaking it.
Just because an act is symbolic of a greater truth does not free you from doing it. The council of Jerusalem in Acts forbade the eating of blood. That is a prohibition based on symbolism. So is the prohibition against eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul deals with this error when he tells the Corinthians that even though they know an idol is nothing, they are not to eat meat they know was sacrificed to idols.
Peter just points out that baptism is not simply taking a bath. Paul tells us of one consequence of baptism in Galatians 3:27 : "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. "
Paul explains the rich symbolism of baptism in Romans 6:4: "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
Well, I don't regard you as regenerate either. Remember that I was the first to regard your belief as full blown Pelagianism and they all regared it as Semi-Pelagianism at the time. However, since then you have outed ourself completely by completely denying Original Sin, despite whatever lip service you pay to it. And I'm still not sure if you truly do believe in God's absolute Omniscience or not. Your words have completely denied it, despite your insistence that you believe in Psalm 139. You have a warped view of the Trinity. etc.
White, you are correct. Doc is abusive. My work with abusive families/spouses suggests that REALLY the only thing an abuser understands is authority. As long as they get away with abuse, they will keep abusing.
Such abuse typically is the sign of a personality disorder of some order/degree.
To fix an abuser, the threat of greater power exerted by a greater authority, and then the application of that power of a greater authority is normally what is required.
Did I understand you to say that Jim Robinson HAS ALREADY banned Doc in the past? Jim doesn't do that easily. So, it isn't just me. Ward Smythe, yesterday, was of the same mind. So was another who freepmailed me. Jim makes the decision more easily the second time.
What were the circumstances of the previous banning? We will look for the same pattern. Thanks for the information. Abusers must be confronted.
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.