Posted on 08/07/2002 9:26:57 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
What you miss is this: God certainly knew what level of miracles would have bought about repentance in Tyre and Sidon. The fact that they did not repent shows that God did not perform that level of miracles. The fact that they did not repent shows that God withheld from them that which He knew would bring about repentance. The fact that they did not repent shows that God did not utilize any other means, as you suggested, of reaching them with the truth.
In your scheme, God hopelessly reaches out to these men, and fails to persuade them. Your God is too small.
Who in the world are you to tell me what I'm "overdoing?" Also, can't Hank speak in his own defense? Why are you acting as a proxy? What he said was his own words. If he didn't mean it to be misconstrued, then maybe the lesson here is that words mean things. If this was his so-called "point," there were a plethora of ways to get that point across without the open wishing for others' children to die.
If that ain't "overdoing" it, I don't know what is. Yet you haven't said that to him. Oh, no! You want to jump me for pointing this out. This was totally unacceptable, yet who are you taking to task? That says a lot.
The context is what counts...
Now YOU are overcooking my grits. If this statement of yours were true (used to apply directly to you and everyone else), then your arguing against those of us who are called Calvinists would have been long over and you would have admitted that you were, and are, wrong. It has been proven to you day in and day out about the "context" of verses of Scripture, yet it means nothing to you because you must hold fast to Arminianism. From Rome and back there again...
That was commonly said to politicians toward the end of the Viet era, AND was an appropriate sentiment AT THAT TIME when the gov't had revealed it had no intention of winning the war.
C'mon, now. I'm only 30, yet I know that the above statement is a gross oversimplification of history. That war WAS won until the Left cut the knees off the effort with their "America Come Home" campaign. So, it's not that politicians didn't want to win this war per se, but, which politicians fought against the effort.
It's similar to saying, "let bush and bin laden fight it out in an open arena, if they're so consumed with war."
So, 2,800 dead Americans in New York doesn't mean anything, right?
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
Now is the time to kill or be killed.
It's similar to saying, "let bush and bin laden fight it out in an open arena, if they're so consumed with war."
Whew. Anyway...
I spent 20 years in the military....I believe I've EARNED the right to talk about war. I've been there. It isn't pretty.
So have I (HHC 82d Soldier Support, 82d Airborne Division HOOAH!, 29E10V81P, Desert Shield/Desert Storm). War is hell. Stevie Wonder can see that. And your point was...?
If I were as thin-skinned as most Calvinists, I suppose I would be all agitated that someone had accused me of blasphemy, which is what such a thought would be. I know your are only drawing what you believe to be a logical conclusion from what I said.
But actually, what you said is very close to what I said. You said, "Joseph's brothers meant it for evil, but God had orchestrated the entire scenario, actively working out His will," which is fine with me. I prefer Moses description and words, but I can live with your description if you will allow me to include, that one of the instruments God uses in his orchestra, is the volition of men. He doesn't have to wait to find out what they are going to choose to use it, as what you said implies, but knows from all eternity what all men will choose, is never surprised by it, can always be certain all choices are exactly what He wants them to be without compulsion. How? You'll have to wait to ask the only one who knows.
Hank
Defense of what? I don't feel threatened by your twadle.
I think you think you have accused me of something. If you did, whatever it is, I admit it, however bad you think it is, I'll confess, it is worse. I'm guilty, I'm wrong, every evil thing you think, say, or could say about me is true.
Feel better?!
xzins, dont defend me. Of course, if you're only defending ideas, which is what I suspect, you are pobably going to end up guilty by association.
Hank
The above is your post that got this started. Who am I to take you to task? Well, I'm the guy who recognizes a clear ad hominem attack when I see one.
Hank's talking theology, and you attack him over a comment on another thread about his sentiments against any war with Iraq. The only purpose that could have would be to cast Hank's theological views into doubt because of his out-of-step views on any war on Iraq.
2800 dead means a lot to me. It means to me that we've been attacked and should destroy the attackers. My sentiments on this point are all over FR if you feel like taking the time to look them up.
But your wild-eyed assertion that you've somehow shown a context that proves salvation isn't for everyone is just that, and silly to boot. It's this kind of inability to deal with the facts of scripture that led you to a personal attack against Hank instead of a refutation of his ideas. You couldn't do that; so you attacked him instead.
I respect your service for the nation. But you know better about integrity than to resort to such tactics.
Mat. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Hank
Twadle? Whatever. Anyway, why should you feel threatened? Am I threatening you?
I think you think you have accused me of something.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I pointed out a fact using your own words.
Twadle. Thanx! I needed that laugh.
That wasn't the point. The point was opposition to an ad hominem attack. He couldn't argue your theological point, so he attacked you personally. And he used a political statement made on an entirely different thread. It was childish on his part, so I called him on it.
I know.
But, you can only use reason where both parties are being rational. Reason does not work against an agenda, as you ought to know.
Thanks!
Hank
In what way are they not "trinitarian"?
It appears that you don't know the definition of ad hominem. Pointing out the words of someone is not an "attack." I didn't make this up out of whole cloth. His accusation of "arrogance" is appalling in light of the fact that he openly wished for the death of others' children who support our war effort. You've yet to denounce this, but you don't have any problem calling me out even though I've not engaged in such unChristian behavior.
Interesting.
Hank's talking theology, and you attack him over a comment on another thread about his sentiments against any war with Iraq.
"You attack him..." Bill Clinton, is that you?
Look it. Did he or did he not come off with the initial accusation of arrogance against Calvinists, and, was my initial response to him in this thread about that accusation?
Yes or no?
Also, was the accusation of his against Calvinists ad hominem?
The only purpose that could have would be to cast Hank's theological views into doubt because of his out-of-step views on any war on Iraq.
Don't even try it. This is not about his views being "out-of-step" on the war effort. It IS about what he SAID about hoping others' children would die. You're now spinning like a CD or a 78 RPM record. No matter how you look at it, this was WRONG. Saying you're against the war is one thing, but openly wishing for others to die is unacceptable. PERIOD. Yet you've still not denounced it.
Interesting.
But your wild-eyed assertion that you've somehow shown a context that proves salvation isn't for everyone is just that, and silly to boot.
You've engaged in nothing but silliness. You won't answer a question straight using the Word. When you've been proven wrong, you then engage in other tactics that skirt the subject.
You, of all people, can't tell me squat. You're not qualified.
Salvation is not for everyone. The Word of God proves this time and time again. It's not my opinion. I state what the Word states in its proper context which is something you are loathe to do. So back up. Your emperor has no clothes.
It's this kind of inability to deal with the facts of scripture that led you to a personal attack against Hank instead of a refutation of his ideas. You couldn't do that; so you attacked him instead.
Pot. Kettle. Black. And now you're a bald-faced liar as well. I haven't "attacked" anyone.
I respect your service for the nation. But you know better about integrity than to resort to such tactics.
I do. Apparently you don't.
They also believe that the saved all will become part of the godhead (they call it the "family of God" ) So in some ways it may be similar (by a stretch ) to exhaulation..
They have other doctrinal distinctives ..like you they believe the gospel will be preached to some after death (the men that never heard it)
Armstong built his doctrine on the 7th day Adventists in some ways .. ( a movement around at about the same time as Joseph Smith..so there is some cross over with them and as I noted a little with you).So they are Sabbath and law keepers ..
The original WWCoG has moved to a trinitarian position ..but Dougs church remains faithful to the original doctrine. I have flagged him so he can correct me if I have misstated it (I too had family in the WWCoG )
I'm puzzled as to why that isn't everyones view. What does eternal mean if it doesn't mean God exists outside of our space/time??
Not exactly. I don't believe that the holy spirit is the connecting force between them...I think the Holy spirit is what we call God's and/or Christ's spiritual interaction, or presence, in our physical space/time. The distinction being that while God and Jesus exist eternally outside of space/time, there is no third eternal person called the Holy Spirit that exists outside of space/time.
They also believe that the saved all will become part of the godhead (they call it the "family of God" ) So in some ways it may be similar (by a stretch ) to exhaulation..
Yah, essentially we become one with God, become his children, become part of the family of God...however you want to describe it.
Actually I'm a member of the United Church of God, a doctrinally similar, but entirely different organization than the World Wide Church of God founded by Armstrong of which United is an offshoot.
Sheesh -- Jack Carter did not realize this logically-obvious impact of Omnitemporal Foreknowledge against any possible synergistic construct?
Yeah, I already told PM that the logical conclusion to this argument is Absolute Predestination.
can't believe I wasted time to even read it. BTW, if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, then you must become an Absolute Predestinarian. ~ CCWoody
Thank you so much for pinging me to this fascinating piece mom...I appreciate it.
CC, what are you talking about?? The article is saying that God knows what's going to happen over time because he's outside of time. He leaves our choices up to us but knows what those choices will be. We are predestined only in God's eyes because he sees past present and future.
Posted by DouglasKC to CCWoody; RnMomof7 On Religion Aug 7 11:13 PM #68 of 137
Douglas, I refer you to OP's excellent arguments. The only thing that is "fascinating" about this article is just how badly the author bumbled both his physics and his theology.
P.S. You may believe that God is merely a cosmic observer, but I happen to believe what the Bible says.
Words of Rdb3 from post #133.
That's the most straight-forward admission of this Calvinist belief that I've ever seen. I appreciate his clarity and will remember this statement.
This is the WHOLE point of the calvinist/arminian debate. The Bible says its freely offered to all; the Institutes of Calvin says it's offered only to the preselected.
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.