Spammers wasteland

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Some wish to be led by mere men and their opinions and theories. Others wish to be led by the Holy Spirit. It's a matter of "Free choice" in the end analysis.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I already informed you, I wouldn't be following your links. So, unless you're doing it for others, don't waste your links on me, please.

There are no links in that of mine to which you just have responded to. Are you OK?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I could still be misunderstanding the issue, but I'm sincerely trying to understand.

My understanding of the Calvinist/Reformed view is that God chose who would be saved and who would be damned individually BEFORE they were "in Adam". Before the foundation of the world, before creation.

No. This is the view of the Hyper-Calvinist, a denounced heresy.

See and digest the following:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Read and digest the thoughts of others before you reach for the "submit" button. This has been explained. The eternal destination of others ordained by God includes the means of getting to that destination, such as prayer, promiscuous preaching of the Good News, and so forth.

You want to go to the store to buy groceries. This assumes you have a way to get there (a means), the monies to buy groceries (a means), that the store exists (a means), and a will to do so (a means). Each and every one of these means have been ordained by God such that your actual act of buying groceries will actually happen.

AMR

If you find analogies helpful, by all means, use them. It's a personal choice.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

There are no links in that of mine to which you just have responded to. Are you OK?

AMR

You appear to be a wee bit disturbed by our conversation? Ought we to take a break while you compose yourself?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You'll be giddy to hear I'm not much of a reader.

That has not restrained you from offering up assertions that cannot withstand careful scrutiny. Tolle lege. Then you will be taken seriously.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Well of course you do. You want some McTheology served up in five minutes or less or it is free. Hiding behind the "I'm just a plain old fellow" excuse is no excuse. It gets old and speaks greatly to your lack of discernment.

The plain fact is that you have not properly understood Nang's statement. I explained it in painful detail. You are either incapable of understanding plain explanations or too stubborn to admit error. If the former, then why should anyone take you seriously? If the latter, why not change your ways? :think:

AMR

You know the old saying: "If you can't take the heat etc?" At this point, I believe it applies to you. You seem to be losing your cool. That's not a good sign. I'm in a good mood. That's a good sign. However, these two emotional conditions don't mix all that well. So, I'm gonna take a break and allow you to simmer down a bit. Perhaps, we can continue this discussion later on? Are we in agreeance?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I didn't read the entirety of your post, however, this caught my attention. You stated the following: "Yes, God has chosen His children. In the choosing He also ordains the means (including prayers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could the prayers of God's children have influenced His "Choice of who would be of the Elect?" I mean, after all, He made that choice "Before the foundation of the world," correct? Do you see the problem with your statement?

Better for you to fully digest the posts of others. I extend you the respect and courtesy of actually reading what you have to say and respond accordingly. Would that you do the same.

The decree of God includes all the means for achieving that decree. One of those means is the fact that God establishes the free will of His creatures, that is, their ability to choose according to their greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose. If God has not established this liberty of spontaneity there would be no free will.

See a more fully developed discussion here:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Mr-Religion&p=2251901&viewfull=1#post2251901

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

With a certain degree of certainty, I would endeavor to speculate, Nang and her ilk only read Reformed commentaries and other written works of that nature.

Given your admitted lack of study of those that have come before us, this is not unexpected.

We Reformed take seriously the commandments of Scripture to take every thought captive (2 Cor. 10:5) for the glory of God and making ourselves able to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15) for that which we hold dear according to the patterns (Hebrews 8:5) of sound teaching found in Holy Writ.

If you read and study the Scripture then perhaps you should do the same. Why do you think God gifted some with gifts for teaching, exhortation, and so on? To ignore them? Are these gifts from God to be ignored by those not so gifted? I think not. I suspect you do not think this to be the case. You are just entrenched and stubborn. It is unbecoming of a member of the faith and brings scandal upon the Lord by those that would cast the Christian as a narrow-minded rube.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Are you quite confident that you're a "Shoe-in" for many rewards?

I have no idea what you are implying other than ridicule. Is this all you have to offer in defense?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

From your viewpoint, I am "confused." From my viewpoint, I'm not. I understood what she was saying. Are you trying to "Cover" for her? By the way, I'll choose my viewpoint as the truth. At the same time, I realize you'll be doing the same. I have no illusions related to that.

The illusion from which you suffer is that you are entitled to your own version of the facts. You are not. You have been answered and shown your error. Until you can provide a proper exegetical argument to the contrary, my analysis stands.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is there truly any "Greater" knowledge than what we find in God's Inspired Word?

No there is not. That is not and was not my point. You know this, but prefer to resort to appealing to the crowd. Hopefully your arm is not cramping from patting yourself on your own back.

My point is clear: you have improperly interpreted our Lord's lament. I have provided a response. You have failed to take it to task at the same level to which it was offered. Your opinions have been found wanting.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Machiavellianism

Thanks for the usual drive-by. You have been seen and your post count updated accordingly. You now have your reward.

AMR

 

[Shasta]

The bottom line God predetermines that certain people will be saved by decreeing that they be given "irresistible grace." When He does not act in this way people are necessarily damned. Either way Gods choice to act or not act that absolutely and inevitably determines who is saved or damned. Prior to this is God's pre-selection of which individual will fall into one category or another. Logically, predetermined salvation is inextricably linked to predetermined damnation no matter how one tries to separate them terminologically.

The author of both salvation and damnation according to Augustine (via Calvin) is God. Whether God secures His determined end through action or inaction is irrelevant since in this system only God's will is truly free.

Now I think this is an illogical and even abominable system. It is because it did not originate in Christianity but in various pagan belief systems; specifically, Gnosticism. For the first three hundred years of the Church, orthodox Christian leaders uniformly taught against the idea of pre-determinism. The idea entered into Church teaching in the Fifth Century through Augustine and from him to the Reformed Movement through Luther and Calvin who were devotees of Augustine.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You know the old saying: "If you can't take the heat etc?" At this point, I believe it applies to you. You seem to be losing your cool. That's not a good sign. I'm in a good mood. That's a good sign. However, these two emotional conditions don't mix all that well. So, I'm gonna take a break and allow you to simmer down a bit. Perhaps, we can continue this discussion later on? Are we in agreeance?

On the contrary, my responses to you are intended to demonstrate without any doubt just how mistaken your frequent opinions and flame-baiting have become. I mean to show to the discerning your folly. You tend to revel in the free reign given you to just assert this or that in hopes of appealing to the mob. It makes for good entertainment, but when the rubber meets the road, the discerning will see you for what you as you actually are: a divisive sort that enjoys stirring the pot.

There is not an anti-Reformed assertion you may render that cannot be met with the full force of Scripture. Indeed, I and others have met you in each and every instance. Your response, always avoiding the substantive, is to retreat behind being but a lachrymose simpleton, that you are but a plain-spoken bumpkin grasping at "Just Me and My Bible" mentality. Digging deeper is beyond your willingness, so reverting to the usual anti-Reformed canards is all you can muster. That may well play to the mob, but it does not acquit your of your error.

It is good that you should retire and it is my hope that you examine yourself, returning with more than just your unsubstantiated opinion of this or that.

AMR

 

[musterion]

I could still be misunderstanding the issue, but I'm sincerely trying to understand.

My understanding of the Calvinist/Reformed view is that God chose who would be saved and who would be damned individually BEFORE they were "in Adam". Before the foundation of the world, before creation.

Some try to say election is individual but the reprobation resulting from not being elected ("passed over") is somehow not individual. As if there is any difference.

It's irreconcilable foolishness.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

On the contrary, my responses to you are intended to demonstrate without any doubt just how mistaken your frequent opinions and flame-baiting have become. I mean to show to the discerning your folly. You tend to revel in the free reign given you to just assert this or that in hopes of appealing to the mob. It makes for good entertainment, but when the rubber meets the road, the discerning will see you for what you as you actually are: a divisive sort that enjoys stirring the pot.

There is not an anti-Reformed assertion you may render that cannot be met with the full force of Scripture. Indeed, I and others have met you in each and every instance. Your response, always avoiding the substantive, is to retreat behind being but a lachrymose simpleton, that you are but a plain-spoken bumpkin grasping at "Just Me and My Bible" mentality. Digging deeper is beyond your willingness, so reverting to the usual anti-Reformed canards is all you can muster. That may well play to the mob, but it does not acquit your of your error.

It is good that you should retire and it is my hope that you examine yourself, returning with more than just your unsubstantiated opinion of this or that.

AMR

Whoa! Now that was pretty wordy and accusatory. I see your anger hasn't diminished since you were allowed a bit of a respite. Your cause has become nothing but a barrage of name calling and put downs. Somehow I expected you to take the high ground. Which shows, even the more scholarly among us can resort to a lack of civility and mature conversation. It seems like you ought to get ahold of yourself, take some time off and regroup. That would be my recommendation.

 

[intojoy]

No, He does not. [FONT=&quot]God is not a little bit pregnant. [/FONT]Power without knowledge is dangerous. Knowledge without power is weak. God is neither dangerous, nor weak. Rather He is wholly sovereign over all that He has created.

God ordains all the means, including contingencies to our thinking, to achieve His ordained ends.

AMR

Can God destroy the earth again with a flood?

No.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No there is not. That is not and was not my point. You know this, but prefer to resort to appealing to the crowd. Hopefully your arm is not cramping from patting yourself on your own back.

My point is clear: you have improperly interpreted our Lord's lament. I have provided a response. You have failed to take it to task at the same level to which it was offered. Your opinions have been found wanting.

AMR

Because my opinion was dismissed by you doesn't mean, blood will cease flowing through my veins nor will oxygen cease to fill my lungs. Life goes on. Your opinion hurts me not. I still hold on to my faith that we are living in the Dispensation of Grace and one must first hear the Grace Gospel and place their faith in Christ as their Savior. There is still free will and you nor your ilk can do anything about it. That bothers you, huh? Live with it, you have no "Choice." Ironic huh?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The illusion from which you suffer is that you are entitled to your own version of the facts. You are not. You have been answered and shown your error. Until you can provide a proper exegetical argument to the contrary, my analysis stands.

AMR

So? Does all life on earth cease to be now?