Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Got some Scripture for that? Where is "free will" taught in the Bible?
Let me translate that: when you become a Calvinist, let me know. It's not going to happen. But I am grateful for the exchange of ideas.
Well put.
Very well put, and always worth remembering in any of these discussions.
We are born in sin and we die sinning. That's our fallen nature and we can never be anything but imperfect humans while on this earth.
But Christ has acquitted us of our sins so that we can stand blameless before God. That doesn't mean we don't sin. It means we are saved in spite of our sins.
Christ paid the price for our sins in total, and thus we are covered by His redemption. His innocence becomes our own.
If we assume any responsibility for our own salvation by our good works or righteousness we usurp His sacrifice.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." -- 1 Corinthians 15:10
You have a strange way of discussing things.
Whether or not you call yourself a Calvinist isn't my concern, but God's. I only asked for you to answer my questions because I've answered yours.
I ask too much, apparently.
What you are asking for is that I answer your questions so that you can agree with them. That isn't the purpose of this discussion. The purpose is to be clear about our differences. And that we have achieved.
Even using your reasoning then, Matthew could not have believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin, because you say he did not know the condition after. Wouldn't he have then assumed a normal relationship, if someone had asked him? I still think that "until" means "until", and that Matthew would have necessarily known about Jesus' bio-half brothers because of the time he spent with Jesus. Of course they would have discussed their families, right?.
Besides, "son of carpenter" is indeed used imprecisely here, just like "brothers" is used imprecisely.
I don't see it as being the same thing at all. Matthew is reporting what the people said. The people could not yet "conceive" (Ha-Ha) that Joseph was not the bio-dad of Jesus. The identity of siblings, though, was easily knowable.
LOL. That may be the purpose, but you haven't contributed much to achieving it.
I've asked you three questions.
1) Did God elect anyone?
2) Why do you think He didn't elect all people?
3) Are you a universalist who thinks all people are God's elect?
I've answered your questions, complete with Scriptural support. Since you haven't reciprocated, the logical inference is that you can't.
At least now we've achieved that much clarity.
I suggest that next time you copy and paste the entire Bible. Then you will have answered all questions before they are ever asked.
By the grace of God alone.
No king but Christ.
That isn't a question. Both are statements.
No doubt. Too bad.
I would suggest you return to Scripture and find the comfort and assurance God has given His sheep.
That isn't a question either. It's a demand that I conform to Calvinism.
In addition, that isn't a logical inference. You haven't proved the truth the hypothesis, nor have you proved the truth of the implication Therefore, Doctor, you haven't proved the truth of the conlusion, by modus ponens or any other rule of inference.
My point is that Matthew is not saying anything about the marital relations of St. Joseph and St. Mary in that verse, neither by way of knowledge of conjecture. Again, you set out to prove a contradiction to a Catholic doctrine and the verse does not contain a contradiction. Remember, the same word "till" is used in very many ways besides "until", as I showed you from scripture.
I would call what I said sarcasm with a smile. :) You asked whether I believed that Jesus actually died. I actually thought that YOU were being sarcastic! I had thought that all of us Protestants had posted enough on this thread to be clear on our belief concerning this. But, if YOU were serious, then I can faithfully report that in all of mainstream Protestantism, we do indeed believe that Jesus actually died. It is, in fact, a cornerstone of our faith. :)
The answer IMO lies in the deception of Eve which Paul mentions twice. Her poor understanding led to her downfall but not the condemnation of the world as Adam's sinful attitude. Sin is still sin whether one is deceived or not (Paul warns Christians in a number of places not to be deceived). God could have prevented it by 1) not allowing the serpent in the garden, 2) giving Eve a better mind to understand God's word, and 3) giving Adam greater wisdom in deciding what to do. He didn't do any of this. God wants us to rely upon Him for wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Not on ourselves. ...
Bears repeating! Thanks for your full answer. That answers a lot of my "Garden" questions I have had for some time. :)
In your earlier response to me on this you were mixing different kinds of love, which I would say you can't do. You asked if I can love my wife without respecting her, and I would say "No". But, one of the reasons I have chosen to love her is that she has earned my respect. The love between us and God is not like the love between a man and wife. Perhaps the closest we can compare is to that between a parent and child. When my two children were born I had all the love in the world for them, but I did not have feelings of respect because they hadn't done anything yet! Now that they are teenagers they have both done things to earn my respect in certain areas.
I know you said that we cannot merit God's respect, which is why I thought you might be using the words interchangeably. You give a further clue when you say that "you can respect but not love..." . I fully respect the Olympic athletes I'm watching right now, and not love them in a sense because I do not know them. However, I certainly CAN love them in a Christian sense, right? OTOH, I would not say that I do not "respect" Castro even though he has been in power since 1959. He is not respectable. He has not earned my respect.
So, it depends on how you define "respect" and to what kind of love you are comparing it. That's what I can't figure out from your answers.
Correct.
The questions are numbered 1 through 3, and there's a question mark (?) at the end of each of them.
If you're still having difficulty finding and answering them, well, as we Calvinists are prone to observe...
"As God wills."
God's wrath upon the unrighteous...
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; Romans 1:24-28
What is interesting is that God reproves those whom He loves, and allows those who have turned from Him to continue in their ways of self-destruction. Thus, men DO choose the vomit - and God allows them to destroy themselves. That is His wrath. His love is to punish us as a father does His son.
Regards
Man can never choose good things that are pleasing to God
...without God. Yes.
Non-Christians can still do nice things. They just can't do the things that are of God.
...without God. Yes.
Regards
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.