Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Institute on Religion and Democracy ^ | Mark Tooley

Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-378 next last
To: jocon307
Something very bad happened to the world in 1968, where it will lead to I have no idea, but it sure seems like Apocolypse soon is likely.

Please explain the date reference??

151 posted on 08/30/2003 10:14:19 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pram
The Supreme Court did not invalidate all sodomy laws. The Texas Sodomy decision effected only laws concerning private sex acts. Several states such as NC and VA are still enforcing their sodomy laws. Local officials in those states argue that their laws concern public acts, not private, and apply to straights as well as gays. Of course, the ACLU and other gay rights groups are not pleased. Looks like the Supreme Court shall be handling another sodomy case in the near future.
152 posted on 08/30/2003 10:31:02 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
That's not a fair argument, brother... guilt by association. So can we assume that those who hold that homosexuality is determined are reflecting the antinomianism thrusted upon us by Calvinism that makes men deny their responsibility before God?

Call it what you like, but it is better than outright lying about Calvinist beliefs. Can you name any true public Calvinist who is antinomian? Just one. Can you name even one confession that teaches both the Doctrines of Grace and antinomianism? Being that you can't, either you don't understand that which you criticize, or you are engaging in a deliberate slander.

Furthermore, can you name any confession or published ST by a five point "Calvinist" who teaches a rejection of personal responsibility? In my experience, it is the "Free Will" Theorist who teaches either legalism or the true "The Law Was Nailed To The Cross" antinomianism.

Noodle this out a bit, if what the student of reformed theology is true, then the same God who brings about faith and belief (via election/regeneration) will also bring about sanctification to perfection. (Romans 8:30; Eph 1:4-5). Compare this to Free Will Theory (FWT) that places the burden of salvation on one who hates God (Roman 1:20), is a mortal enemy of God, rebels against all that God says can never please God (Romans 8:6-8), slaves to Hell and sin(Romans 6:19-20; Eph 2:1-3), can't understand the Gospel, consider it foolishness (1 Cor 2:14), and are blinded to the Gospel command to repent (2 Cor 4:4), and would prefer for rocks to fall and crush them than to bow the knee (Rev 6:16). Somehow everyone who comes to Christ must first make God a liar. Then this person grades his own test and gives himself an 'A'. This is accomplished because the FWT says "I believe in Jesus". Well what constitutes belief? What if the Jesus that the FWT claims to believe in has nothing in common with the Jesus found in Scripture? Quite possible, actually inevitable.
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?"
Yet the FWT claims to believe the same God that said that the unregenerate has no hope in believing on his own. For the FWT, to believe in Jesus means that you can't believe the Bible. That is an inescapable paradox.

Now returning to the article. I bet that it would be impossible to find a true five point Calvinist who teaches that the saved can engage in the hedonism and vile perversity that regularly is tolerated and accepted in the FWT community. The passages referenced above are prooftexts that indicate that many of those who claim to "believe in Jesus because of their own Free Will" will also use that same free will to believe anything else that they want to believe.

153 posted on 08/30/2003 10:35:49 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: unspun
The plan is to get enough sects to accept it so that the can call the others extreeme..
154 posted on 08/31/2003 12:01:12 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: mugsy
Mugs, I think the vast majority of libertarian Christians are doing their best to make sense out of a world where moral consensus has gone out the window.

I did read your post. YOU try not to be irresponsible. At the same time, the consequences of the behavior of others endangers us all, and especially our little one.

There is a time and a place for considering and controlling those consequences.

My point: A libertarian cannot just say, "do what you like" and then walk away. Many act that way. Consequences to their own loved ones, however, will eventually bring them back to some form of social controls.
155 posted on 08/31/2003 3:26:18 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose; the_doc; CCWoody
Ping to #153.

You all need to meet each other.
156 posted on 08/31/2003 3:32:42 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jean Chauvin; RnMomof7; drstevej
Ping to #153.

You all need to meet each other.
157 posted on 08/31/2003 3:33:27 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Liberal Christians? The ultimate oxymoron.
158 posted on 08/31/2003 3:41:52 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Now that you mention it.... :>)
159 posted on 08/31/2003 3:48:14 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This really should have had a "barf alert" on it.

Carolyn

160 posted on 08/31/2003 4:04:21 AM PDT by CDHart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Going to Hell in a Handbasket--Ping.
161 posted on 08/31/2003 4:37:08 AM PDT by Paul Ross (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!-A. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
They should have finished the phrase:
Blessed "Bi" Satan
162 posted on 08/31/2003 5:37:01 AM PDT by glory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: xzins
No doubt friend, no doubt. Rough and even more immoral times ahead.
163 posted on 08/31/2003 5:40:07 AM PDT by glory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: glory; CARepubGal
Blessed Bi

It is clearly a play on the Wiccan words "blessed be."

"You tolerate that woman Jezebel."

164 posted on 08/31/2003 5:44:28 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: xzins
All have the free will to choose to do good or evil, and to experience the consequences of their choices.

Free will cannot change the natural laws of cause and effect. Free will allows you to jump off a cliff but not to defy gravity.

165 posted on 08/31/2003 6:38:36 AM PDT by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: pram
"Please explain the date reference??"

Well, I probably should have said "approximately 1968" but it does seem to me that that's the year the lid really came off.

I grew up in Manhattan and until the mid-sixties we lived in peace, the doors of Churches stood open during the day and life was basically normal.

Starting at that time chaos of all varieties seemed to begin to flouish. Divorce was made easily obtainable, crime increased dramitcally and all the churches were locked up tight to guard against theft and assualt. Then RFK and MLK were assissinated (and even if one didn't like or agree with them brutal murder is never a good thing), we had the hippie drug/sex fest "summer of love" and it just seems to me that that's when all this modern dis-harmony started.

Now, I am aware that all the dubious philosophies propounded today have roots that go way back. But it still seems to me that some unarticulated, possible unknown, thing or force took hold of the zeitgeist in 1968 and it has held sway since that time.

But you know, I still live in the NY Metro area, which would included Philly too, broadly speaking, so maybe it's just the Urban East-coasters (and their counterparts on the left coast, of course) who have been nuts for 25 years.


166 posted on 08/31/2003 6:40:16 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Seriously, if we let the pecksniffs make the determination they will make everything but straight sex (no foreplay) in the missionary position in the dark with your clothes on with your legal spouse during a time when conception is likely a sin and preferably a crime.

No foreplay!!

167 posted on 08/31/2003 7:12:26 AM PDT by Scenic Sounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: xzins
One day when we're all old we'll sit around and talk about how Rich Santorum warned us. ....
168 posted on 08/31/2003 7:20:27 AM PDT by thathamiltonwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Yes, He gave man free will. Now how will you use that gift? In obedience to Him or in sin?
169 posted on 08/31/2003 7:32:54 AM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Gee, I learned a new word today...."polyamory".

They do come up with some doozies, don't they?

Wonder how soon this catchy appelation will come up in the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle.

Leni

170 posted on 08/31/2003 7:33:30 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
All have the free will to choose to do good or evil...

Isa 64:6 But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Rom 7:18-19 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.

Care to amend those words? Or is Scripture lying?

171 posted on 08/31/2003 8:29:10 AM PDT by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
It's not a good thing to quote scripture in the attempt to support a position in opposition of the meaning of scripture.

Those verses you quoted were spoken from a position of someone who was experiencing true humility and unworthiness before God. They do not mean that people should give up trying to serve the will of God, if that's what you're trying to imply.

172 posted on 08/31/2003 8:48:14 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Well, I probably should have said "approximately 1968" but it does seem to me that that's the year the lid really came off.

I've seen very interesting statistics - I may have them somewhere; I'm REALLY bad at computer use and so it's hard for me to save or find anything, :( - but the social fabric actually began to fray at the same time TV became available and widely watched. Every soical indicator - crime, divorce, sexual immorality, unwed motherhood, and some others - were at a basically flat line until the mid 50's. The watching of TV and all those social ills went up at the same rate at the same time.

The mass indoctrination of population? What are the values, beliefs, and philosophies of the small group of people who write the TV shows, produce them, and write the "news"? A tiny percentage of the population is feeding the minds of the vast majority.

BTW, I've had a TV a total of about 1 or 2 years in the last (figure it out) - since I left home at 16 (early 50's now.)

173 posted on 08/31/2003 8:55:28 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Now returning to the article. I bet that it would be impossible to find a true five point Calvinist who teaches that the saved can engage in the hedonism and vile perversity that regularly is tolerated and accepted in the FWT community. The passages referenced above are prooftexts that indicate that many of those who claim to "believe in Jesus because of their own Free Will" will also use that same free will to believe anything else that they want to believe.

I can see that you have a lot of knowledge concerning finer points of various Christian sects, that I am ignorant of, so I would appreciate it if you could explain your position more clearly, in slightly more simple layman's language, for people like me who are not knowledgeable about the FWT people and five point Calvinists. I apologize if I misunderstood you in my last post to you.

I am not trying to be challenging, I am out of my field of understanding when discussing Christian sects.

174 posted on 08/31/2003 9:04:22 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Let's face it. Americans are not going to put up with a Govt that decides it is going to become the sex police and regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

I can't understand why you insist that Santorum's statement - and the many Americans who agree with him - want to have police on a "seach and destroy" mission against behavior which is practiced in secrecy. This is a straw man argument. The whole purpose of anti-sodomy laws is to keep such behavior out of the mainstream, out of the public view. That way fewer people will be seduced into it, and if such sodomy practitioners try their skills in, say, public bathrooms they can then be arrested. Why don't you see this? Why are you so attracted to the idea of sodomy and/or same sex acts being protected?

175 posted on 08/31/2003 9:20:54 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Yes, He gave man free will. Now how will you use that gift? In obedience to Him or in sin?

Yes, God gave man a gift and you are trying to steal it or destroy it.
You must be very proud of yourself.

So9

176 posted on 08/31/2003 9:45:46 AM PDT by Servant of the Nine (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Speaking of trans-sexuals and poly-amory, an interesting thing I learned from the Jerry Springer show is that trans-sexuals like to date and sleep with only heterosexual males. It was actually a Springer-worthy segment when a gay guy came out and said he was about to tell his trans-sexual lover that he's really not straight. My head was spinning. These people are so F'ed in the head and soul.
177 posted on 08/31/2003 10:28:07 AM PDT by Conservative til I die (They say anti-Catholicism is the thinking man's anti-Semitism; that's an insult to thinking men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pram
"BTW, I've had a TV a total of about 1 or 2 years in the last (figure it out) - since I left home at 16"

You are indeed a rare bird. My brother was like that, he never had a tv. Me, I have the TV on all the times, except in the mornings before I go to work, but I don't actually watch it. It's like the "hearth" to me.
178 posted on 08/31/2003 10:32:12 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
He clearly addressed the issue of privacy when it came to sex between consenting adults in the context of the sodomy case...and warned about the "dangers" of saying adultery and homosexuality were OK. Now unless he was advocating the sex police busting down the bedroom doors of consenting adults and arresting them for acts of adultery and homosexuality, then his point is moot. And he should have thought before he spoke.

Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

179 posted on 08/31/2003 10:50:58 AM PDT by gogeo (Life is hard. It's really hard if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: mugsy
Those controls were already in place before drugs were made illegal in this country. Did you even read my post? I said, "Trust me, I don't refrain from drug abuse because certain drugs are illegal, nor would I start using them if they were legalized. Social opprobrium, a love for my family and my own body are what keep me from abusing myself with drugs. It has nothing to do with the laws passed by corrupted legislators."

Sorry to be the one to break it to you...not everything is about you, and not everybody thinks the way you do. There are people who are restrained by questions of legality.

180 posted on 08/31/2003 11:10:25 AM PDT by gogeo (Life is hard. It's really hard if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: thathamiltonwoman
One day when we're all old we'll sit around and talk about how Rich Santorum warned us. ....

Like we talk about Dan Quayle now?

181 posted on 08/31/2003 11:14:59 AM PDT by gogeo (Life is hard. It's really hard if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
I like quiet! Helps me in meditation and prayer. To get info I read, and visit FR! For entertainment, I play music and make stuff.
182 posted on 08/31/2003 11:15:32 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Then a figure representing Jesus appears, played by a young woman wrapped in the rainbow flag, which is the emblem of the homosexual movement.

This Comment Removed by Moderator

183 posted on 08/31/2003 11:28:33 AM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
They should form a new faith and worhip a bisexual God. This I could accept. But, corrupting existing religions is SO much easier. Why start new when you can simply take over?

Better a heathen than a heretic.

184 posted on 08/31/2003 11:38:57 AM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: xzins; glory
I took it to be a Wiccan phrase. Somehow I suspect this critter is a Dianic Wiccan (the ones without men allowed).
185 posted on 08/31/2003 11:59:37 AM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Well, I was born the tail end of spring 1968, on the night of a passing comet. Could I be the antiChrist? :-) It's a joke. Really.
186 posted on 08/31/2003 12:10:07 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: xzins
How the heck did this Rev. Jorge end up in any official position at the UMC's Board of Global Ministries?!
187 posted on 08/31/2003 1:04:54 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
[I]f the post-mill's are correct, we've got a LOOOOOONNNNGGGGGG wait ahead of us.

It could turn around real fast. Really, it could.... ;x ...Certainly doesn't look like it from this view, though.

188 posted on 08/31/2003 1:14:42 PM PDT by The Grammarian (<----Post-millenialist(?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"Our best hope for change rests not with bishops and the pope but with Catholic people," Cervone insisted. "Change won't come form the top down. The Catholic people must demand freedom.

Besides the serious health issues which arise by having multiple partners, the Vatican, has condemned gay marriages:

The Vatican has condemned same-sex unions as deviant and a threat to society in a fresh attempt to halt the growing momentum towards legalising gay marriage in North America and Europe.

The Holy See urged Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills that would recognise gay marriage in a strongly worded document approved by Pope John Paul II- causing anger among gay rights activists across Europe.

"Marriage exists solely between a man and a woman...Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," said the 12-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour...but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."

The document also denounced gay couples adopting children: "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children."

It was the second time this year the Vatican instructed Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills legalising gay marriage.

Church authorities have also repeatedly condemned homosexuality in more general terms this year, although they say chaste gays should be welcomed into the Church.

In March, the Vatican released a new glossary of sexual terms which said countries which allowed gay marriages were inhabited by people with "profoundly disordered minds". LINK

Cervone affirmed her lesbianism as a "gift of God." She confessed she has a hard time attending the Catholic Church, because the "church is not where we find freedom. It's where we go to hide."

The gift of God is the Holy Spirit, which is present in every true believer. Those who want to destroy our confidence in God and reject God's word are not true believers, but enemies of God. Whoever follows Jesus teachings and believes He is the only way to forgiveness and eternal life will receive this gift, and not by legislating corrupt behavior.

189 posted on 08/31/2003 1:36:27 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (The opinions I value are the ones from people I respectů the rest are just comic relief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: pram
could [you] explain your position more clearly, in slightly more simple layman's language, ...about the FWT people and five point Calvinists.

In regards to "sects of Christianity", I am more of the opinion that one "sect" generally has a different personality than another. A true "church" is made up of individuals professing a common faith. How the charismatics conduct their affairs different from certain Baptists or Presbyterians is another matter, since I have been "forced" in a way to fellowship with presbyterians when I don't fully accept their covenant theology. We do agree on that which truly matters and that is why I would worship with those who teach infant baptism when I would be more inclined to a believer's baptism.

When it comes to the differences between those who believe in the the Doctrines of Grace (5 pt Calvinism) vs the American Religion (a hodge-podge of Arminianism, Pelagianism, and gnostisicm) beyond superficiality, there is little in common. We share a belief in a Trinity, but the Trinity of the American Religion (adopted by many 'Bible' churches, Southern Baptist organizations and by the many independants who claim to be "seeker sensitive") has very little to do with the Biblical Trinity.

Those of the Reformed faith (aka "Calvinists") worship a Sovereign God, whose Will is unthwarted by the creation. The American Religion, characterized by various Free Will theories, say that God is powerless to save and that salvation is completely up to man, governed by an alleged "free-will" choice. The former says that man is unable, the latter says that God is unable. The former says that God chooses, the latter says that man chooses. The former says that God's Will prevails, the latter says that Man's Will prevails. The former says that God's salvation is 100% effective for some (the 'elect'), the latter says that salvation is hypothetical for 100% of the people.

Calvinists believe that man's default state is born in sin, naturally rebellious deserving Hell and without God intervening in each individual's life all would perish. The American Religion says that man's default state is sinlessness, ie. a child needs no savior and if died would merit heaven because sin is only sin when consciously practiced. Heaven is man's to lose, not to gain. This is where FWT breaks off into various sub groups. Some think that one must "Choose Christ" in order to be saved. Others think that one must "Reject Christ" in order to be damned. Then you have those who reject even a Hell so salvation/condemnation is nothing more than where one sits at the table.

Calvinists recognize that after salvation, one's earthly troubles increase; the American Religion teaches that after salvation one's earthly troubles diminish. It is the latter that brings us these tradegies of Health & Wealth prosperity doctrines since the original premise is that Life with Jesus is supposed to produce temporal increase, despite Christ's claim that "In this world you will have tribulation.". From the spiritual aspect, Calvinism is opposite of the American Religion again. Calvinists generally believe that while the physical world is in battle, there is spiritual peace that comes from the Paraclete. Clearly the American Religion believes that through a complex system of quid pro quo, Jesus is the Great Santa Claus that know who has been bad or good and puts a Lexus in the driveway for those who prayed harder, or who showed the most self reform. As for spiritual peace, there is always the Christian Psychologist and the various Counseling and 12 Step Programs available at the church. Feel pain in your life? Take a pill and stop beating your spouse.

Calvinists view God with awe and reverence knowing that all things work for good to those who are within His will. Even salvation requires a change of heart before belief and faith can take place. IOW, The Spirit indwells prior to salvation. The American Religion says that man's heart is already good enough to recognize the gospel and to place within itself conviction. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is optional (though strongly advised) and is sought through that complex system of good works in order to merit indwelling. The reformed teach man's heart is a mess and needs cleaning by the Spirit, the American Religion teaches that man needs to clean-up his heart first before the Spirit will come in.

In short, Calvinism is Theocentric. The American Religion is Anthropocentric. Calvinism recongizes God's Sovereignty for God's Glory. FWT/American Religion feels that it is all about man. It is man who is sovereign and it is man who receives the glory of salvation. Jesus Christ is nothing more than a Plush Toy Genie Jesus to the saved, and through the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism (Pessimillennialism coined by others) Jesus Christ ironically "loves" the reprobate through remarkably profound violence and destruction.

It is hard to find two more dissimilar religions that claim to use the same textbook. It may be that the American Religion uses their Bible as a stage prop and couldn't care less to the contents unless fragments could be looted to compose pithy choruses, chants and bumper stickers.

190 posted on 08/31/2003 1:46:33 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
The real explanation is Jesus' parable, if you can receive it.

"An enemy sowed weeds amongst the wheat."

191 posted on 08/31/2003 2:58:08 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: thathamiltonwoman
Despite others' belief that he wishes to violate basic civil rights, it is not so. Santorum wishes the legislature to have authority to consider any threat which might affect the community.
192 posted on 08/31/2003 3:01:01 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
a concerted campaign to teach their ideas. words.

probably very soon.
193 posted on 08/31/2003 3:02:06 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
:>)
194 posted on 08/31/2003 3:03:41 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
The ones without men allowed.

I hope they stick to their principles.

195 posted on 08/31/2003 3:04:47 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Darnedest thing about will is that both God and man have will by Divine Decree. Both God and man choose for those who are believers. God chooses by common grace that the person hearing the Gospel undrestands the message. The man who accepts and believes in Jesus Christ is then by grace provided efficacious grace by the Holy Spirit to make that faith effective for salvation.

Many legalistic Calvinists get the cart before the horse, believing that if man believes in Christ through faith in Him, that this usurps God's Soverignty. Such a theology misses the Soverignty of God because it omits His mandating man to have free will by His decree. God neither usurps His decree nor abandons man, but recognizes faith for righteousness because it isn't a work,..it is nonmeritorious and may then be counted as righteousness. Since Christ has already died in sacrificial atonement for all sin, the wrath of God has already been answered.

If the Calvinist, though, believes in Christ through that theology, then this is not to distract from the Calvinist's faith but to encourage him to further study how God also provides for man to have free will and remain obedient to Him while in fellowship with Him.
196 posted on 08/31/2003 4:23:10 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Nothing wrong in the enforcement of criminal laws. Man also has a free will to disobey God by murdering his fellow man, also a criminal act, but both murder and sodomy are unrighteous behavior controllable by criminal law.

Nothing in this removes any divine decree of a free will in man as a creature with volition.
197 posted on 08/31/2003 4:39:41 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; Dr Warmoose
Still don't understand a bit of Calvinism I see, Cvengr.
198 posted on 08/31/2003 5:28:54 PM PDT by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
Quite a bit more than many who call themselves Calvinists and ignore Scriptural doctrine which Calvin didn't master.
199 posted on 08/31/2003 5:58:25 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Darnedest thing about will is that both God and man have will by Divine Decree.

Except that God's Will is bound to His Counsel, and man's will is bound to sin and death. Just as much as we would not expect God's Will to change, we have the same expectations for man. Now what does this have to do with the concept of "free-will"? No one here is denying that personal beings have a will, or is that the point, just bring up red herrings?

Both God and man choose for those who are believers

Let's cut to the chase. How many that God chooses do not come to salvation?

The man who accepts and believes in Jesus Christ is then by grace provided efficacious grace by the Holy Spirit to make that faith effective for salvation.

I am well aware of the anthropocentric teachings of man. I choose to get my doctrine from Scripture, not made up by people who are irked by God's Sovereignty. Given that the natural human state hates God (Romans 1:20) is an enemy of God (8:6-8), is a slave to sin, without righteousness, by nature a "child or wrath" in relation to God (6:19-20; Eph 2:1-3) doesn't understand the Gospel message and considers it foolish (1 Cor 2:14) is blinded to the Gospel command to repent of sin by Satan (2 Cor 4:4), and would prefer to be crushed to death by falling rocks rather than bow the knee to God (Rev 6:15-17) is going to overcome all of that from a spiritually dead state and "choose Christ"? Or is your response, in effect, a hand waving denial of clear Scripture?

Many legalistic Calvinists get the cart before the horse, believing that if man believes in Christ through faith in Him, that this usurps God's Soverignty...

First of all, this is a rhetorical question formed out of a presuppositional hypothetical is a logical response to the Free Will Theorist who rejects Scripture and keeps insisting on Free Will as the means of salvation. Since you folks won't accept the Bible, those who believe in the Doctrines of Grace in apparent futility try to reason with you using your own line of argument. (Oh, and the "legalist" Calvinst dig is a nice insertion. Who are these legalist Calvinists? Another strawman fiction?)

Such a theology misses the Soverignty of God because it omits His mandating man to have free will by His decree.

For it to be "theology", it must be a about God. One way in how we know about God is through His revealed Word. Now I know that there is no such Decree in the Canon of Scripture, so I wonder where you discovered this nugget about this alleged Divine Decree of man's Free Will. I could rant about the obvious internal contradiction

Job 15:15-16 "If God puts no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight, How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, who drinks iniquity like water!"

The Bible states right here that God can't even trust Moses, David, Abraham and "the saints". But you want to foist this idea that though God can't trust them, that God is more than willing (by Divine Decree even) to trust His perfect Will and Soveriengty to the wicked and unregenerated man. (excuse me while I laugh)

God neither usurps His decree nor abandons man,

Then may I reaquaint you with Romans 1 which is a chapter that devotes itself to describing the conditions on why God regularly abandons man.

but recognizes faith for righteousness because it isn't a work

That is a red herring also. Faith is a gift from God (see Ephesians 2:8; Gal 2:22-23). Even if it was a "work", it still originates from God. What do you think "God has dealt to each one a measure of faith" means? (Rom 12:3) What kind of self-serving heretic would take something that was given to him by God and claim that he didn't get it from God, but instead made it himself? This question doesn't even address the lunacy of thinking that a person who hates God and considers the Gospel foolish would on his own place his faith in that which he loathes and despises.

Since Christ has already died in sacrificial atonement for all sin, the wrath of God has already been answered.

Then why repent or use free-will for anything if all sin of every person has been paid for? You are saying that God the Father is unjust, in that if His Son paid the price for all sin of every person, 2000 years ago, then if anyone goes to Hell on account of sin then God is demanding double payment for sin. For the wages of sin is death. So riddle me this, how can anyone still be responsibile for the consequences of sin if Jesus Christ paid the price already? You are teaching the worst form of antinomianism in that because of Christ, there is no one who will go to Hell no matter what they think about God.

not to distract from the Calvinist's faith but to encourage him to further study how God also provides for man to have free will and remain obedient to Him while in fellowship with Him.

How arrogant of you! Here you provide absolutely no substantiation for your clearly anti-Biblical claims, then you say that it is the Calvinist's responsibility to make sense out of the irrational babblings of the Free Will Theorist. It appears to me that the Calvinist already has his homework finished and has merely echoed the words of the authors of Scripture. Free Will has no basis in Scripture, (hence the remarkable absence of it in any discussion of it and its hypothetical applicability to soteriology) and has to contradict most of Scripture in order to hold it.

No thanks, I don't need to wrest Scripture, I just need to remain firm.

200 posted on 08/31/2003 6:08:26 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-378 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson