Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
482

Was that a picture of your cat? 'Cause we might need to have another discussion…

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
pookie, I never claimed to know it all. I respect your intrigue, but I just want to mention the obvious: There are concepts in theology and science that we can contemplate from here till next year and not be even one step closer to the actual truth or reason. All I know is what I believe happened in the Garden of Eden as recorded in the Bibe. Anything more than this is just sheer speculation on my part. I take the Biblical accounts by faith. I’m sure God could’ve installed an electric fence around the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, or positioned some vicious pitbulls to guard it, but He didn’t. In His infinite wisdom, only He knows why…[/quote]

That’s where our paths fork I guess; you can accept “on faith” all that’s told in the Bible. I cannot. At least, not if I wish to remain honest with myself.

483

[quote]pookie wrote:
Our courts, fallible and human, do not condemn people who cannot understand their actions. If you can’t distinguish right from wrong, you’re not held responsible for your actions. To act otherwise is deemed cruel. Yet a being of infinite wisdom cannot see that?[/quote]
God is outside of creation. We, His creations, compare the fallible with the infallible because our understanding is now fallen and corrupt. We can try all we want to express how we think God should’ve done things in a better way, but ultimately our knowledge is just a drop in the ocean while He sustains the universe with His eyes shut and both hands tied behind His back. That’s metaphorical by the way…

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Had God been a powerless bystander, He would not introduced a cure for all of Eve’s future generations. He does not infringe upon our will. He allows us to maintain our personality and will; God did not produce us like robots to control with a remote control. He gave us minds, he gave us hearts, and now we have knowledge. It is these components which we must configure to be spiritually uplifted once again. The decision is ours. He promises that He shall be there step-by-step to provide His assistance. A powerless bystander wouldn’t do that.
pookie wrote:
Neither would an all powerful God (in the sense of letting the situation deteriorate to that point in the first place). A divine “oops” moment if you will.[/quote]
Perhaps by allowing it to deteriorate He reminds mankind (beginning with Adam & Eve) to truly treasure and glorify Him who sustains us. That’s not a Divine mistake but rather a Divine blessing.

Here’s an analogy:
Like an older brother who’s younger sibling wants to get wasted by attempting to break into the liquor cabinet. The old brother has warned the younger about the dangers of drinking and the negative effects of alcohol, but being that the younger won’t listen, says, “ok, do as you wish, but if you drink from that, you’ll get sick”. The younger sibling drinks till he gets completely bombed, wakes up the next day and has a terrible hangover. The younger promises to never drink again. Same concept with Adam & Eve. God allowed them to falter, but He did not make them falter. Out of sympathy, the older brother nurses the younger back to good health by providing two aspirin, fetching him plenty of fluids, and encouraging him to get ample rest. So it is with God. He witnessed Adam & Eve’s Fall, but was right there offering the cure in love and compassion so they could overcome their sickened spiritual disposition.

As a loving older brother would forgive the younger sibling, so too did God forgive Adam & Eve. But significant to note, both Adam & Eve as well as the younger sibling must obey the wise instructions being offered so as to be healed of any spiritual or physical maladies.

God is not condemning us for Adam & Eve’s actions, quite the contrary - He is forgiving us of every sin we commit in our lives even before we ask Him to. All we have to do is have faith and accept His spiritual instructions.

Peace be with you.

484

[quote]pookie wrote:
Was that a picture of your cat? 'Cause we might need to have another discussion…[/quote]

Don’t let the pic fool you. She may look cuddly but she’s all paws, claws, & jaws with the instinct of a 13 pound tiger!

485

Just for the record, I’m not in agreement with extol7extol’s commentary. He seems to preach that God controls humans unconsciously to do His bidding. Orthodox Christians do not subscribe to the concept of “divine determinism”. I also get the feeling he claims the Egyptian pharaoh had no free will which is straight up heresy. extol7extol’s post wreaks of Calvinist Protestant theology… Enter the 16th century’s false tradition of Bible interpretation. I hope my assumptions are wrong. Otherwise, this situation could get ugly.

Peace be with you.

486

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Just for the record, I’m not in agreement with extol7extol’s commentary. [/quote]

Alleluia! We finally agree on something!

God exercising any of his power “unconsciously” is a terriying concept.

It appears that way.

I can feel the bold text being readied from here…

Don’t you ever sleep?

487

[quote]pookie wrote:

Mind you, I am monogamous and faithful to my wife (we’re not married, but I find the term “girlfriend” not to convey the right picture about the relationship), so disease is not an issue. We use birth control so that we have kids when we feel ready for them (2 so far…) and sex as often as we want or can. Guilt free too.
[/quote]

Marriage came before the Law. A common law marriage is as real as one in any protestant denomonation or non-Christian group.

Perhaps it was so that the Pharoah could be saved.

True, Orthodoxy consideres women to be generally spiritually superior to men. Let’s get some equality here!

488

Pookie, you asked for the differences between the Romans as Orthodox. I listed some back a page (or maybe 2 now) Just wondering if you got a chance to see them.

Also on the topic of sin-sin is anything that becomes an obsession-that occupies your mind or body. For example, looking at a picture of a naked woman or whatever is not a sin, but spending 2 hours a day looking for porn on the internet would be. It would begin to become mental pollution and I suspect become less “satisfying” itself over time. This is how cleverly Satan tempts us. Many other addictions fall into this category.

So there are addictive sins which pollute the mind and body.

Just because two people consent, does not mean that they do not harm one another’s bodies and minds, or that you can not harm your own.

489

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Orthodoxy consideres women to be generally spiritually superior to men.[/quote]

I disagree.

Orthodox Life, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan-Feb, 1981), pp. 34-41
by Archbishop Chrysostomos

"If we live our Orthodoxy appropriately, we need not define with rigidity the nature of our relationships, men and women, to one another. We will live within that perfect peace by which each knows his role, not out of the imposition of another’s will, but out of humility before God. And in this humility, how dare any man think that he is above a woman or a woman above a man, anymore than a priest might think himself, superior to the royal priesthood of the people whom he serves."

“As regards the so-called “feminist” position (of which we hear so much today), there are certain issues on which the Orthodox Christian (if not, perhaps, the rational individual) cannot yield. We do affirm and recognize an order, meaning, and functional differentiation in created things. Thus our Faith teaches us that the female is endowed by God with certain characteristics and tendencies that differ from those of men. (And this, rather than detracting from her, elevates her as part of the divine scheme. By no means does this teaching suggest, or tolerate the relegating of women to some lowly status.) Moreover, our intellects and senses teach us that women and men differ.”

“[i]Moderation in thought and attitudes manifests itself to us also in flesh and blood, so that we can see in sober Orthodox men and women exactly what is wrong with our present intemperate thinking about men and women in “roles” dictated by their “natures.” Where, indeed, are such thoughts in the tear-evoking sweetness of the encounter of the Elder Zossima with our wondrous Mother, Saint Mary of Egypt? Can one imagine the holy elder saying to himself, “Being a priest, I shall bless this saint, for I am, by nature, worthy of that which she, by nature, is not”? God forbid! Rather, the holy elder fell before our beloved Mother and asked that she bless him. And could it be that the wondrous woman among God’s saints said to herself, I will bless this man, since he, indeed, must know that I have a right to the priesthood”? Indeed, no. Which of us can forego tears thinking of what truly happened? Falling prostrate before the holy elder, St. Mary begged his forgiveness, the two remaining for some time thus prostrated before one another, each saying, “Eulogeite,” or “Bless.” As we all know, the Holy Mother, deferring to Father Zossima’s priesthood, wished his blessing. And what a lesson to learn from the result. She cried out, “Blessed is our God, who watches over the salvation of souls and people.” And the holy elder responded, “Amen.”

Shame, hence, to each of us who proclaims either the man or the woman superior, or pretends to know the proper role and nature of each. This is arrogance , immoderation, intellectual pomposity, and the usurpation of judgments which only God can make. In true spirituality, distinctions, both formal and informal, disappear. This is not to say that we should, in any way, allow our social responsibilities to go unheeded in the name of human freedom and illusory, worldly liberty. Certainly we must not in any sense feel akin to movements which threaten social and spiritual order. But neither should we decide that there are clear offices and stations in life which, gleaned from an improper understanding of the spiritual world, absolutely fix the role of any person, whether Lord or serf, freeman or slave, man or woman. We live between the two antipodes of our future existence: separation from God, the fruit of our mortal way, and union with God, the fruit of the spiritual way - between Hell and Heaven. We must correctly envision ourselves in this middle state, reflecting as it does. our notions of men and women. If we are too extreme in the mortal sense, we lower the image of God in man. If we are too extreme in the spiritual sense, we suffer from the delusion of aspiring to what we are without proper transformation of our fallen selves[/i]."

Peace be with you brother.

490

Sin entered the world by means of a women (Eve), but sin also exited the world by means of a woman (Virgin Mary a.k.a. Theotokos, or God-bearer).

Generally-speaking, men & women possess different traits on a psycho-emotional level which impart subtle influences on the human soul. As the heart effects the disposition of the soul, so too does the mind. In heaven & hell, humans are not categorized on the basis of gender. Neither man nor woman is glorified as being spiritually superior to the other according to the Orthodox Christian Church. Men and women are deemed equals who simply use different spiritual tools to engage God.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

We share one human nature in Christ. Therefore, valuing people based on:
(1)opinions and ethnicity (neither Jew nor Greek),
(2)pride and social status (neither slave nor free), and
(3)gender (neither male nor female) has no place in the Church.

All are one in nature and so all are equal in dignity.

Peace be with all.

491

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Sin entered the world by means of a women (Eve), but sin also exited the world by means of a woman (Virgin Mary a.k.a. Theotokos, or God-bearer).

Generally-speaking, men & women possess different traits on a psycho-emotional level which impart subtle influences on the human soul. As the heart effects the spiritual state of the soul, so will the mind. In heaven/hell, humans are categorized as neither male nor female. Neither man nor woman is glorified as being spiritually superior to the other according to the Orthodox Christian Church. They are deemed equals.

Peace be with all.[/quote]

Yes men and women are different. I am thinking of examples such as Mary, and the women who came to the tomb, Helen who is responsible for the Christianity of the Byzantine empire and all of the grandmothers who preserved Orthodoxy during the communist era.

492

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Orthodoxy consideres women to be generally spiritually superior to men.

I disagree.

Orthodox Life, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan-Feb, 1981), pp. 34-41
by Archbishop Chrysostomos

"If we live our Orthodoxy appropriately, we need not define with rigidity the nature of our relationships, men and women, to one another. We will live within that perfect peace by which each knows his role, not out of the imposition of another’s will, but out of humility before God. And in this humility, how dare any man think that he is above a woman or a woman above a man, anymore than a priest might think himself, superior to the royal priesthood of the people whom he serves."

“As regards the so-called “feminist” position (of which we hear so much today), there are certain issues on which the Orthodox Christian (if not, perhaps, the rational individual) cannot yield. We do affirm and recognize an order, meaning, and functional differentiation in created things. Thus our Faith teaches us that the female is endowed by God with certain characteristics and tendencies that differ from those of men. (And this, rather than detracting from her, elevates her as part of the divine scheme. By no means does this teaching suggest, or tolerate the relegating of women to some lowly status.) Moreover, our intellects and senses teach us that women and men differ.”

“[i]Moderation in thought and attitudes manifests itself to us also in flesh and blood, so that we can see in sober Orthodox men and women exactly what is wrong with our present intemperate thinking about men and women in “roles” dictated by their “natures.” Where, indeed, are such thoughts in the tear-evoking sweetness of the encounter of the Elder Zossima with our wondrous Mother, Saint Mary of Egypt? Can one imagine the holy elder saying to himself, “Being a priest, I shall bless this saint, for I am, by nature, worthy of that which she, by nature, is not”? God forbid! Rather, the holy elder fell before our beloved Mother and asked that she bless him. And could it be that the wondrous woman among God’s saints said to herself, I will bless this man, since he, indeed, must know that I have a right to the priesthood”? Indeed, no. Which of us can forego tears thinking of what truly happened? Falling prostrate before the holy elder, St. Mary begged his forgiveness, the two remaining for some time thus prostrated before one another, each saying, “Eulogeite,” or “Bless.” As we all know, the Holy Mother, deferring to Father Zossima’s priesthood, wished his blessing. And what a lesson to learn from the result. She cried out, “Blessed is our God, who watches over the salvation of souls and people.” And the holy elder responded, “Amen.”

Shame, hence, to each of us who proclaims either the man or the woman superior, or pretends to know the proper role and nature of each. This is arrogance , immoderation, intellectual pomposity, and the usurpation of judgments which only God can make. In true spirituality, distinctions, both formal and informal, disappear. This is not to say that we should, in any way, allow our social responsibilities to go unheeded in the name of human freedom and illusory, worldly liberty. Certainly we must not in any sense feel akin to movements which threaten social and spiritual order. But neither should we decide that there are clear offices and stations in life which, gleaned from an improper understanding of the spiritual world, absolutely fix the role of any person, whether Lord or serf, freeman or slave, man or woman. We live between the two antipodes of our future existence: separation from God, the fruit of our mortal way, and union with God, the fruit of the spiritual way - between Hell and Heaven. We must correctly envision ourselves in this middle state, reflecting as it does. our notions of men and women. If we are too extreme in the mortal sense, we lower the image of God in man. If we are too extreme in the spiritual sense, we suffer from the delusion of aspiring to what we are without proper transformation of our fallen selves[/i]."

Peace be with you brother.[/quote]

Thank you for these words of the Archbishop. I think that they better state what I meant to say. I made a mistake and overreacted to the “supresion of women” line that I hear so often. Anyone who experiences a year of life in the Church will know that men and women have equal but unique roles. Women are even considered priests-just not priests at the altar of the church, just as a man cannot be a mother.

493

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Just for the record, I’m not in agreement with extol7extol’s commentary. He seems to preach that God controls humans unconsciously to do His bidding. Orthodox Christians do not subscribe to the concept of “divine determinism”. I also get the feeling he claims the Egyptian pharaoh had no free will which is straight up heresy.[/quote]

What’s interesting is that you desire to defend the freedom of man to control his own life (as does Pookie). While I desire to defend the Biblical doctrine of the absolute Sovereignty and freedom of God. That is, it is God who controls what man does, and what man wills. It is God who determines a person’s destiny. Those for whom Christ died, it is heaven and those for whom Christ did not die, it is hell.

Take a look at the following passages of Scripture and tell me where you see that Pharoah has “free-will” (i.e., a will that God has no control over).

And Jehovah said to Moses, as you go to return to Egypt, see all the wonders which I have put in your hand, and do them before Pharaoh. And I will make strong his heart, and he will not send the people away (Exodus 4:21).

And I will harden the heart of Pharaoh. And I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh will not listen to you. And I will put My hand on Egypt, and will bring My armies, My people, the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt with great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah when I send forth My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst (Exodus 7:3-5).

And Jehovah made heavy Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not listen to them, as Jehovah had said to Moses. And Jehovah said to Moses, Get up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh, and say to him, So says Jehovah the God of the Hebrews, Send away My people that they may serve Me. For at this time I am going to send all My plagues to your heart, and on your servants, and on your people, so that you may know that none is like Me in all the land. For now I have sent forth My hand and have stricken you and your people with pestilence, and you have been destroyed from the earth. And for this reason I have made you stand, in order to cause you to see My power, and in order to declare My name in all the land. You still are exalting yourself against My people, so as not to send them away (Exodus 9:12-17).

[quote]extol7extol’s post wreaks of Calvinist Protestant theology… Enter the 16th century’s false tradition of Bible interpretation. I hope my assumptions are wrong. Otherwise, this situation could get ugly.
[/quote]

Well, I’m certainly not a “Calvinist.” For historic Calvinism has always
held that Christ died for all men without exception, albeit in different senses–At least according to “Calvinist Protestant” Charles Hodge. I repudiate that view with all my being, thus showing that I’m not a “Calvinist.” Anyways, here’s Charles Hodge:

“Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died specially for his own people does account for the general offer of
the gospel, how can it be reconciled with those passages which, in one form or another, teach that He died for all men? In answer to this question, it may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He
might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation;
and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, p. 558).

Dabney, like C Hodge, ALSO held to “Calvinist Protestant theology.” Anyways, he says, just like C Hodge, “Hence it is absolutely impossible for us to retain the dogma that Christ, in design, died equally for all. We are compelled to hold that he died for Peter and Paul in some sense in which he did not die for Judas” (Lectures p., 522,).

What is interesting to note is that despite the many differences between the “Orthodox” like stellar and the “Protestant Calvinists”, they BOTH believe the nefarious notion that Christ’s blood does not atone apart from the effort of sinful man. In other words, they BOTH believe that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement, lies not in the power of Christ Himself, but in the so-called “power” of the sinner.

494

[quote]pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:

He seems to preach that God controls humans unconsciously to do His bidding.

God exercising any of his power “unconsciously” is a terriying concept.[/quote]

Pookie, God is not exercising power unconsciously. It is the man who is unconscious in being controlled. And in that sense he is “free.” That is, he does not feel like he is being controlled, but he is:

“As streams of waters, the king’s heart is in the hand of Jehovah; He turns it wherever He desires” (Proverbs 21:1). Likewise Pookie, your heart (i.e. mind, will, etc.) is in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He desires. And if He desires to damn you, He will do so. And if He desires to save you, He will cause you to believe the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that God promises to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone (Mathew 1:21, Romans 3:21-28).

495

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
What is interesting to note is that despite the many differences between the “Orthodox” like stellar and the “Protestant Calvinists”, they BOTH believe the nefarious notion that Christ’s blood does not atone apart from the effort of sinful man. In other words, they BOTH believe that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement, lies not in the power of Christ Himself, but in the so-called “power” of the sinner. [/quote]

So Calvinist know believe in the “power” of the sinner? Are you sure about this?

496

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
Just for the record, I’m not in agreement with extol7extol’s commentary. He seems to preach that God controls humans unconsciously to do His bidding. Orthodox Christians do not subscribe to the concept of “divine determinism”. I also get the feeling he claims the Egyptian pharaoh had no free will which is straight up heresy.

What’s interesting is that you desire to defend the freedom of man to control his own life (as does Pookie). While I desire to defend the Biblical doctrine of the absolute Sovereignty and freedom of God. That is, it is God who controls what man does, and what man wills. It is God who determines a person’s destiny. Those for whom Christ died, it is heaven and those for whom Christ did not die, it is hell.
[/quote]

You greatly underestimate God’s power. If he created time, space, and matter (and these things can not exist independent of each other-at least not our definitions of them) he has made something which he transcends. Free will is an often unrecognized axiom of science because without it no conjecture could even in principle be falsefiable.

Here’s one for you:

If you don’t believe in free will, how can you know what you have even read in the bible or written on this thread? You may think you know, but your thoughts are predetermined. The conclusions of all of your logical reasoning were set from the beginning of time. Logic fails, perception fails, argument fails.

497

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
What is interesting to note is that despite the many differences between the “Orthodox” like stellar and the “Protestant Calvinists”, they BOTH believe the nefarious notion that Christ’s blood does not atone apart from the effort of sinful man. In other words, they BOTH believe that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement, lies not in the power of Christ Himself, but in the so-called “power” of the sinner. [/quote]

Wrong. Christ’s death freed ALL flesh from the curse of DEATH. His resurrection made a path for ALL FLESH to the resurrection. The choice for us is God or oblivion.

498

[quote]pookie wrote:
extol7extol wrote:
I’m curious as to what exactly is your criterion for judging something “good, evil, etc.”? What is your standard for judging what is just, good, or evil? In other words, how do you KNOW that something is just, good, or evil?

Evil: Causing unnecessary harm, pain or anguish.

Good: Whatever I want, as long as it is does not cause “evil” as defined above.[/quote]

What I wanted to know was where did you get the notion of your definition of “evil”? Did you read
it in a book by some philosopher? Is it just “common sense”? In other words, I get “my definition” of evil from the Bible. From where do you get your particular definition as stated above?

Also, according to your definition above, Hitler did not commit “evil.” For just like you, he did whatever he wanted. Where you differ is what you believe “evil” to be. Although most likely willing to concede that his actions caused harm, pain, or anguish; Hitler obviously did not deem his actions unnecessary. If you would object, and say:

“No. Hitler’s actions were NOT necessary at all. They were downright barbaric!” Hitler, answering you according to your own terms, according to your own standard of “truth”, could reply to you by saying:

“Truth is relative pal. And the values that you and I hold dear are different. Your values are true for you, and my values are true for me. Moreover, we humans are really just bags of chemicals. Thus, what one chemical does to another is morally irrelevant.”

[quote]pookie wrote:
Murder for murder’s sake is wrong.[/quote]

Says who? You? I know because the Bible says so. You, on the other hand cannot appeal to the Bible since you reject it as the Word of the true and living God. To whom do you appeal? To what do you appeal?

By the way, your statement: “Murder for murder’s sake is wrong”, is a very dogmatic statement. I’m
not the only dogmatist here.

[quote]pookie wrote:
There are many absolute truths in mathematics. But like I said before, if you’re dealing with more abstract concepts, I don’t think you can establish absolute truths. At least not in the way you can in mathematics.[/quote]

You stated above: “I don’t think you can establish absolute truths.” Is this statement, a statement of absolute truth?

If yes, then contrary to what you thought, you actually CAN establish absolute truths: The absolute truth that there are no absolute truths that can be established.

[quote]pookie wrote:
I can (and do) condemn those that do evil as I see it. And I can be consistent since my values don’t change randomly.

Jim Phelps goes around with his bunch of lunatics with his “God Hates Fags” posters… Do you condemn him or support him because he claims to be following the LORD’s word?[/quote]

Evil as you see it. Not evil as God sees it.

As for Mr. Phelps, I never heard of him. Nevertheless, I would condemn, and not support those kinds of actions. So what if he claims to be following the Lord’s word?

Well of course. I don’t expect an atheist to believe the Bible is true, any more than I expect a Muslim, Mormon, those of the “Othodox” or Roman Catholic faiths, or any other false relgionist.

[quote]pookie wrote:
So at that point the Egyptians did not have free will as promised by God?

How can nobody see all these constant contradictions?[/quote]

What are you talking about? I did not say, and the Bible does not teach that “God promised free will” to the Egyptians, nor to anyone else.

[quote]pookie wrote:Yes, God vs. The Pharaoh. I wonder what odds the bookmakers gave on that match.

You don’t find a story about God fighting his own creatures a bit weird?[/quote]

Read it again. God is not fighting. God is omnipotent, He doesn’t need to fight. God is displaying His power and wrath in the Pharaoh. “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might display My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth.” So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens” (Romans 9:17-18). Note that God is NOT fighting, or struggling with the Pharaoh. God is not showing Pharaoh that He is merely stronger than he is. This would not show God’s power. Almighty God over against poor little Pharaoh? This does not reveal God’s power. God does not want to show that He is stronger. A man could do that.

When God says that He is displaying His power in the Pharaoh by hardening him in order to destroy him as a vessel of wrath, He is showing that He alone is God, and that there is no power outside Him and that He does all His good pleasure. Do you get it now?

[quote]pookie wrote:
It there still a point being made? You’ve gone from a valid question to just throwing scripture at me. I’ve got the book at home, thanks.
[/quote]

Uhhh, you’re not the only one on this thread. There are others who read the posts besides you, thanks.

499

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Free will is an often unrecognized axiom of science because without it no conjecture could even in principle be falsefiable.[/quote]

I assume by “science” you mean knowledge?

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Here’s one for you:

If you don’t believe in free will, how can you know what you have even read in the bible or written on this thread? You may think you know, but your thoughts are predetermined. The conclusions of all of your logical reasoning were set from the beginning of time. Logic fails, perception fails, argument fails.
[/quote]

How can I KNOW what I have read in the Bible or written on this thread? Simple. God has determined before the foundation of the world that I should know.

Man’s words, man’s thoughts, man’s will, are his own. But man is not autonomous. For it is God
that determines what man says, what man thinks, and what man does.

To those who would rage against the sovereignty of God by asserting their so-called autonomous freedom, God says:

“Why have the nations raged and the peoples are meditating on vanity?
The kings of the earth set themselves; yea, the rulers have plotted together against Jehovah and His Anointed, saying,We will break their bands in two, and throw off their cords from us.
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall mock at them.
Then He will speak to them in His anger, and He will terrify them in His wrath” (Psalm 2:1-5).

The rebellious creature man asserting free-will: “We will break their bands in two, and throw off their cords from us.”

Now see God asserting His free-will: “He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall mock at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger, and He will terrify them in His wrath.”

500

[quote]Croooz wrote:

So Calvinist know (sic) believe in the “power” of the sinner? Are you sure about this?
[/quote]

One more time. Here is Charles Hodge (1797-1878), the most influential Calvinist theologian of the 19th century, teaching his false doctrine at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1822 almost to his death in 1878:

“Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died
specially for his own people does account for the general offer of
the gospel, how can it be reconciled with those passages which, in
one form or another, teach that He died for all men? In answer to
this question, it may be remarked in the first place that
Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they
deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all men.
He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the
penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He
might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state
on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation;
and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and
reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance”
(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, p. 558).

In addition to this, and contrary to what most lost Calvinists like
Charles Hodge believed, Jesus Christ did not die for the reprobate
in any sense, and they do not benefit in any sense from His death.
Calvinists like Charles Hodge like to chant the blasphemous
mantra, “sufficient for all; efficient for the elect”, “sufficient
for all; efficient for the elect.” This is just the Calvinist
version of universal atonement. The death of Christ is only
sufficient for those He died for. His precious blood was shed for
His elect people only. Those who say that Christ’s blood benefits
those who will end up in hell treat His precious blood as a common
thing.

Moreover, faith and repentance are NOT the conditions for salvation.
They are IMMEDIATE and inevitable FRUITS of salvation.

True faith believes that Jesus Christ met all the conditions for
salvation, thus guaranteeing the salvation of everyone for whom He
died. Arminians do NOT believe that the death of Jesus Christ
guarantees the salvation of everyone for whom He died. Thus, they do
not believe that Jesus Christ met all the conditions for salvation.
They, along with lost Calvinist Charles Hodge, believe that the
sinner has to meet conditions. They deny that Christ is a complete
Savior by asserting that they meet conditions. If someone says that
he meets conditions for his own salvation, then he denies that
Christ met them all. He denies that Jesus is the Christ. BOTH the
Arminians and Charles Hodge spoke (and speak) by the spirit of the
antichrist. They are both liars about the Person and Work of Christ:

“Who is the liar, except the one denying, saying that Jesus is not
the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and
the Son” (1 John 2:22).

Repentance is repenting of believeing that salvation is conditioned
on what you did or what you thought you were enabled to do.

There is essentially NO DIFFERENCE between Calvinist Charles Hodge, and the Arminian. For they both believe in salvation conditioned on the
sinner. They both believe that faith is the condition. Where they
differ is on where this “faith” comes from. The lost Calvinists
believe that God the Holy Spirit enables the elect sinner
to “believe.” The lost Arminians believe that they meet this
condition on their own “steam” (“steam”, being the “steam of free-
will”). BOTH views are damnable heresy. BOTH views deny that Jesus
Christ met all the conditions for the salvation of His people. And
thus BOTH views deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). No
wonder the lost Calvinists count Arminians to be their brethren.
They BOTH have the SAME lying father, and thus the lusts of their
father, they BOTH desire to do (John 8:44).

501

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
How can I KNOW what I have read in the Bible or written on this thread? Simple. God has determined before the foundation of the world that I should know.
[/quote]

And being outside of time he can just as easily change what you should know a thousand times a day.

Linear+Time=Crap

Since people living an absolutely deterministic life cannot express reason.

I conclude that you do not believe what you have written here, and that you are purposefully lying about your beliefs.

If you want to argue simply that some are “chosen” and others not, that’s different.