Posted on 09/07/2003 6:36:06 PM PDT by nobdysfool
It is (sigh).
For raw, natural physical beauty, it is second only to Alaska (as far as my own personal experience; your mileage may vary)... and Switzerland combines some delightful old-european architectural beauty with its natural physical beauty, which Alaska does not. It is a little "crowded" in feeling due to the fact that the valleys are (necessarily) developed as efficiently as possible, right up to the vineyards growing on almost-vertical mountain slopes, but the people are pleasant enough that it doesn't feel all that crowded, any more than a cozy den feels "crowded".
The people are generally sociable, well-mannered, friendly... and, unfortunately, not generally looking for a mass influx of new citizens (meaning-no-offense-I'm-sure-you-understand-it's-certainly-nothing-personal).
Get thee behind me, Nero.
Allowing the UN secondary HQ to set up shop in Geneva was definitely a "there goes the neighborhood" stupid move.
I had posted an excerpt from an article on Free will. This is the part that you replied to me about, with the rest of the paragraph that you didn’t repeat, because it weakened your position:
What most people mean by free will is the idea that man is by nature neutral and therefore able to choose either good or evil. This simply is not true. The human will and the whole of human nature is bent to only evil continually. Jeremiah asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer. 13:23). It is impossible. It is contrary to nature. Thus do men desperately need the supernatural transformation of their natures, else their wills are enslaved to choosing evil. (from post 369 )
Your reply:
To: nobdysfool
What most people mean by free will is the idea that man is by nature neutral and therefore able to choose either good or evil. This simply is not true.
Then perhaps you aren't saved yet.
For myself, I heard the Gospel and understood the meaning through common grace. A call was made by the Father and I accepted. The moment of my faith and belief in the propitiation of our sin through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit imputed an efficacious grace for my salvation.
I continue to grow in Him. If I slip because my soul had been scarred, I nevertheless have been reborn and regenerated in the spirit.
The Holy Spirit indwells me and my joy remains as long as I do not quench the Spirit.
If I do sin, or fall away from Him, for a period, my sins have already been paid for at the cross. All that I must do is return to Him so He may return to me if He so wills. By my confession of those sins through Christ and repentence, He remains just and faithful to His judgment of sin in Christ.
Sin was paid for on the cross. Not good nor evil. Even unbelievers have capacity to perform good. Not divine good which is understood by things eternal in righteousness by Him, and it is for this reason that they will be judged by the opening of the second Book of Works. When they show no works of righteousness via divine good, then their works will amount simply to good for nothingness and the Lake of Fire will become their destiny.
Perhaps God has chosen me or yourself in eternity past, but using the criterion of such we will never know from that perspective which attempts to place man as judge of God's past foreknowledge.
On the contrary, it is only by acceptance of the Perfect Sacrifice, the unlimited atonement which was made for us by Jesus Christ, that have faith in Him. Once that faith exists, even coincident, then conditions have been established for God to meet His promises as we return to Him, He is able then to return to us. His grace and His love then continues in His faithfulness to His Son, whereby we receive the indwelling even of all three persons of God.
We also have the ability to choose evil. If we choose to sin, or disobey God, we still become separated from Him. But as sin has already been paid for,...all sin, past and future, then we still may return to Him and a situationa again arises where He may return to us in righteousness.
If we continually sin after we believe in Him, then He will probably discipline us, and if we continue in sin, to the point where we have no saltiness left, then He might call us home via the sin unto death. In that situation we no longer afford Him any usefulness while in this body and continued evil would only serve as disadvantageous to those seeking righteousness.
Several times you have said that you couldn’t understand why a believer, such I, would be offended by you preaching the gospel, as you claim you were doing here. The point to be understood here is this: Why would you “preach the Gospel” to me unless you actually did believe that I was not saved, as the very first sentence of your reply to me stated? Yet you deny that you actually thought I wasn’t saved. This post to me proves categorically that you did, in fact, believe I wasn’t saved, and attempted to “preach the Gospel” to me. My point here is that you did believe I wasn’t saved. In spite of the fact that we had discussed doctrine before on another thread, concerning dichotomy/trichotomy of man, and the Atonement, which should have been enough evidence that I am a believer, whether or not we agreed. In fact, your position on the Atonement changed from that exchange to this thread, in a statement you made several posts later. But, apparently you have no concept of how it can insult someone to be told that they may not be saved yet, when the whole basis for that is disagreement with your view of free will. The right understanding of free will is not necessary for salvation itself.
In the interest of brevity ( at least compared to the 50 pages of posts I have saved which document your obstinance not only to me, but to others as well), I will post link to the relevant thread for anyone who want to research it for themselves. I can provide ample proof for every last thing I’ve said here.
Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism
You owe me an apology for publicly speculating that I might not be saved, and for implying that I was or am out of fellowship with God. As personal, private opinions, you were free to think so, but in a public forum, you are not free to publicly speculate and impune someone’s character without consequence. Especially when your judgment of such things is based solely on measuring me against your particular doctrine. It doesn’t matter whether you think you were right or not, or justified or not. The fact that I took offense, and with justification, should be enough to elicit an apology from you, if for no other reason than you regret that what you felt was an innocent speculation was taken as an insult and a slur on my character. An apology would set that right. That would be the gracious thing to do. If it had been done immediately, it would not have grown into this. As the issue has grown, so must the apology. You seem to be operating from the attitude that if you apologize to me for your mistaken speculation, that somehow you capitulate to me on all points, and deny your own position. I don’t think you are very adept at putting yourself in another’s position and understanding the effect what you say may have on the listener. A lack of empathy, perhaps.
Regardless, I believe that an apology is necessary, and expected.
Prior to common grace, this is true.
After receiving common grace, the actual truthful cognition of the gospel given to us by the Father, this is not true.
Upon reception of common grace, man does have the ability with free will to choose between good and evil. It isn't dictated by God. He created us with volition just as He has volition (a characteristic known as Sovereignty).
The believer (hence the term) actually exercises volition in believing in Him, a nonmeritorious form of righteousness, which the Holy Spirit then uses and makes effectual for salvation.
If somebody fails to exercise that volition, then there lacks a faith for the Holy Spirit to make effectual for salvation.
Some slip in Calvinism by believing the allowance of that free will negates God's Soverignty and then slip again by linking the faith of the believer to predestination, rather than foreknowledge and election.
He still is the one who provides grace to the natural man by the initail understanding of the gospel in man,..not yet at the point of believing it.(A true condition for all men).
If a man sincerely believes the nature of man in all conditions (especially when man is in fellowship with God) in inherantly void of any good or divine good, then that person might not have experienced salvation. The belief of man after the grace of God allows the Holy Spirit to make that faith effectual for salvation.
As believers we inherit a royal priesthood where we have more blessings than any other believer throughout human history. It's foolish to dwell on depravity once one is saved, rather live in Him and we grow by the Holy Spirit's work as we continue that faith in Him. I suspect we both agree that the best manifestation and testimony of one's walk with the Lord is when we naturally express our views and they coincide with Scripture. That is a consequence of maturing in Him and walking in fellowship with Him continually.
Not to defend (or condemn) Cvengr, and I'm not going back to research. But we've been told ad nauseum from the swarm that the method doesn't matter as long as the message is "right."
In other words, it's okay for the swarm to be condescending, judgmental, harsh, graphic, rude and more because the message is "right."
My point is, if the swarm doesn't give a d@mn about offending others then you have little room to squeal when you are offended.
That doesn't excuse anyone's behavior. But let's be consistent.
If the swarm does not wish to be offended, then you have to learn not to be offensive.
You are correct, Corin. However, while a Pre-Millennial interpretation of the Apostles Creed is linguistically possible, it is not an honest interpretation.
In order for your analogy to be correct, you need to be going to Georgia in order to accomplish unrelated activities prior to the wedding.
Furthermore, Your "stay" of five days is misleading. In order for your analogy to be accurate, your "stay" in Georgia must be far longer than five days. Let's say 1000 years.
Furthermore, the length of the stay cannot be mentioned -as the Apostles creed doesn't give us a time frame. Now, the activity you are to do in Georgia prior to the wedding is to assume the governership of Georgia and to rule Georgia for a ONE THOUSAND YEARS!
So, here is what you will be doing:
What would your neighbor be thinking in his head? Would he think that you are traveling to Georgia for express purpose of attending a wedding? Of course, because that is what you told him.
Now, let's say that this neighbor met up with you in, say, 8 months. Making polite conversation, your (now former) neighbor asks you how "that wedding" went. You answer him by saying, "The wedding is not for another 999 years and 4 months."
You get a blank stare from your neighbor as he contemplates how you misled him as to what you were to be doing in Georgia!
(When it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter if the wedding is 1 year away, 10 years away, 100 years away or 1000 years away)
You respond by telling him that you were not "lying" when you told him you were going to Georgia "in order to" attend a wedding because you indeed went to Georgia and you indeed will be attending a wedding.
Your neighbor asks you if your name is "Bill Clinton".
You respond by saying, "Well, that all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."
Yes, Corin, a Pre-Mill interpretation of the Apostles Creed is linguistically possible, but it is not an honest interpretation!
Jean
Your not being honest here, x. The Apostles Creed does ~NOT~ say, "Whence he shall come to judge some of the living and some of the dead."
Jean
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.