| 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 |
Perhaps I should elaborate. It is a good thing that a person should choose to obey God. The verse I posted earlier from Romans 2 shows that even the pagans of that day showed the law of God by doing it even though they didn't have knowledge of the Law in the same way the Jews did, who were given the Law. However, that goodness is not what saves. Indeed, it is part of the "filthy rags." The small sliver of goodness which we see in humanity from time to time is not sufficient to make him or her righteous in the sight of God. Which is kinda the point of Romans, yes? So, the simple obedience to the Holy Spirit is good, but it's not because of an innate goodness of humanity nor does it mean that we deserve anything or that God owes us anything, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Who did cause the rejection of God, in your system? Was humanity predestined for Hell from the outset? And if so, on what basis?
Only cuz you're so dang cute.
You're new to the thread, so you have yet to hear me expound the wondrous merits of a small book entitled "The Gospel of the Kingdom" by G.E. Ladd. It's a great little book on a subject called "realized eschatology." A great read and a great interpretation of passages such as this. To read Calvinism into this is to do some injustice to the message of John as it pertains to eschatology.
So it is a spiritual condition? If it's not passed on genetically (which I didn't think you'd argue), why is it that Jesus is not the bearer of grace to all mankind in the same way Adam was the bearer of sin?
I really hope you're not this dense, Mom. But if you're not, then you're playing a little power game. You have made this thinly veiled accusation on at least a dozen occasions and made other thinly veiled accusations at Angelo. What happened is much simpler than your X-files explanation. If you read the moderator's post and the context in which they were made, it will be obvious to everyone who can read. To him who has ears, let him read. Amen
And I suppose having God all figured out lets you sleep better at night.
You guys are masters of the tautology. This is a "duh" statement, really, isn't it?
I hope so, but I'm not nearly so sure of myself as you are of you. I do understand that putting "according to my gospel" in bold does not change the fact that Paul very plainly writes that the pagans show what God's laws require when they INSTINCTIVELY do what the law requires of them.
I win. I bolded and capsed mine.
Yes, and "a cat is a cat" is a tautology. But it is trivial. Your interpretation of 2 Peter is more like "God is not willing that any bachelor should marry, but that all bachelors be unmarried." Of course, once someone is married they are no longer a bachelor. But that's a long way to drive to find the diner ain't open.
Now, if only there was a way of interpreting Peter's statement in a non-tautological fashion which stayed true to the meaning of Scripture. (sigh) If only.....
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.