| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/13/2006 8:40:19 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Old Toxic Thread - Discuss the issues on new threads. |
Posted on 03/31/2004 6:56:15 AM PST by fishtank
The pings are new.
Besides, it proves my senses were properly tuned.
If you mean the point that it was obviously meant as an insult, a slur, a slam...then your senses are indeed finely tuned.
I would agree with John Owen when he writes "to suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."
To the question I've asked you, my answer would rest in God's predestining, creative will whereby He choose to save some completely by Christ's redemption of them, and not because they did anything to merit His grace. All who are His will hear and see and understand and believe according to His perfect purpose from before time began.
The rest won't. But not because they weren't as good or righteous as the guy next door because grace has nothing to do with men's abilities or decisions. All men are fallen. Grace is the free, unmerited gift of God, based on His will alone, and not on any foreseen work, foreseen faith, foreseen decision to believe. Why? Again, because all men are fallen.
So if you could give us the Arminian perspective, why do you think one man "accepts" God's grace and another man doesn't? This question has been asked of you dozens of times and you either don't answer it or you reply something about having already answered it somewhere else. Perhaps I've missed it and you could kindly post it again. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.
Corin, no one here is "insulting" anyone. The problem is that the antithesis always looks like a "slam."
The Reformation "looks like a slam" to the church in Rome because it rebuts the church in Rome.
The Calvinist POV "looks like a slam" to the Arminian POV because it denies what the Arminian POV asserts.
Start a real thread and I'll answer your question.
precisely.....Godfather...you understand exactly.
Then why resurrect an old thread meant only for the purpose of ridicule?
Honest debate is one thing. Honest disagreement is another.
This is neither.
If she would start a real thread, maybe we'd answer her objections.
You...maybe.
Me? Not so much.
You mean that an antithesis just can't exist without making the other side the butt of jokes, or misrepresenting their position, or mischaracterizing them in some other way?
I don't think you really believe that.
Spurgeon (no Googling)
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.