Fervent said:

You feign reasoning, but all it really is is a shell game where your arbitrary feelings are dressed up in supposed arguments where the relationship between premises and conclusion is a mystery.

None of this bridges the is-ought gap, it remains either a non-sequitor because the conclusion is unrelated to the premises or a question begging argument because the conclusion is in the premises. It's not reasoning, it's sophistry.

Click to expand...

Just as I said. You won't specifically address anything. It's the usual 'Oh no it isn't'. And you never, and I mean never put forward your own argument.

You said I put the moral value into the premises. Well here are the premises that I used to see if it's morally valid for me to hit you:

'There are facts to consider. If I hit you upside the head then you will be hurt and somewhat annoyed. Empathy allows me to establish that.

I use reason to determine what the likely outcome is likely to be. Are you going to buy me a beer or take a swing at me? The decision there is that you'll likely respond in kind. That IS the fact of the matter as I have determined. You being annoyed and me possibly getting a smack in the mouth.'

Can you point out where the moral value is in that? I know you can't, but I want to see how you'll avoid doing so.

It is a pioneering development in cosmology to be able to calculate Ho from simply knowing light speed. These leaps in cosmology are rare these days. I notice another forum is discussing the fall of the LCDM model.
It's 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21 = 71 to the rescue of cosmology

WOW - 12,000,000 non Caucasian people enter the US illegally in one term - no issues with race - less than 5,000 Caucasian South Africans are trying to legally enter the US legally and it is a racist issue.

They should have just come across the Southern Border illegally - then the left would protect them.

Fantine said:

Just what we need, believers in apartheid because we have a racist shortage here. SMH.

Click to expand...

pssst... they are fleeing for their lives because of their race -

yeesh - know your racist before saying things like this.

SabbathBlessings said:

Where is this Scripture. The law doesn't do anything except SHOW us what sin is Rom 3:20 Rom7:7 without the law, we would not know what is right or wrong. We would depend on our own righteousness instead of God's Psa 119:172

Sin is breaking the law 1 John3:4 if we are dead to sin would be worshipping other gods or stealing from our neighbor?

To vain His holy name is that what you call being alive in Christ? Laying aside His commandments and worshipping Him in vain- is what Jesus said the path that leads one to a ditch Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13, not being reconciled back to Him.

Jesus has a lot of commandments; one verse doesn't delete the other such as Mat19:17-19 Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13 John 14:15 John 15:10 Mat5:19-30 etc

there is no past tense 1 John 3:4

Amen

No, the death of Jesus did not nail all future sins to the Cross so we can live in rebellion to God. We continue living in sin(breaking the law1John3:4) , there remains no more sacrifice Heb 10:26-30 why would someone in Christ not obey what He asks? This makes no sense because sadly, its not a doctrine coming from God Isa8:20

Thats because they are only worshipping God and not stealing from their neighbor or breaking the least of these commandments as Jesus taught and lived so therefore they are not breaking the law, they are keeping it just as Jesus asked. John 14:15 Mat5:19-30 Exo 20:6

Back to what Paul said, does faith void the law- No, it does the opposite, it establishes it Rom3:31. I would consider this every time you start teaching to break the least of these commandments instead of hearing and following what Jesus said to teach (and not teach with steep consequences) Mat5:19

We do not want to hear these words when Jesus comes Mat7:23 but these Rev22:14

Click to expand...

An there are 3 AORIST TENSES in 1 John 3:4 !!

#. 1 IT SAYS , BE BORN // GENNAO , is an. AORIST TENSE , in. the PASSIVE VOICE

# 2 HE ENTER // EIERCHOMAI. is also in the AORIST TENSE in. the ACTIVE VOICE

# 3 BE BORN // GENNAO , is also in the AORIST TENSE in. the PASSIVE VOICE , means God is in. involved

# 4. And the AOTIST TENSE is you simple PAST TENSE !!

dan p

Oompa Loompa said:

Congress passes laws.

Click to expand...

Republican Congress is just an extension of Trump.

rambot said:

Lol.
Good for you and your quote mining!

First paragraph. Before your quotemine

Click to expand...

Right he had serious mental issues BEFORE Jan 6 - that isn't quote mining that is quoting in context -

It would be different if he was mentally stable before and then killed himself afterwards.

Context my friend, context.

bling said:

The free will “acceptance of God’s charity”, is seen as a purely selfish act on the sinner’s part and thus a sin, but the unregenerate sinner is always sinning. Everyone will humble so humility is not a spiritual activity:

Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted

Click to expand...

No, not everyone humbles himself, this is the why of Luke 14:11.

bling said:

Humbly accepting undeserved charity as charity for selfish reasons is not a righteous choice, since it is a selfish choice, but it does allow God to shower the person with gifts.

Click to expand...

If a person accepts the gospel as charity, it means they understand that God wants to reconcile with them, which is a measure of faith in Christ, since it is the gospel. I suppose that Hagar and Ishmael accepted charity from God because they were desperate enough, not because they had a "saving faith." So I do accept your idea that unregenerate people can accept charity, but the fact is, they have to be desperate enough, otherwise they will proudly decline.

But we aren't talking about mere acceptance of charity by natural order. The subject matter is regeneration preceding faith in Christ. This is an apples/oranges distinction. Desperation to accept charity in the natural sense can lead one to a spiritual wisdom to accept Christ, but since the latter is a spiritual matter, it requires God's supernatural dealings. A person must first see himself spiritually bankrupt before looking to Christ for help. Only those people who God reveals the truth to are able to exercise hope in Christ, after seeing their spiritual bankruptcy. Therefore, properly reading 1 Jn. 5:1, Eph. 2:5, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other places shows us that if a person comes to real faith in Christ, they have already been regenerated.

So it is not correct hermeneutic to claim that just because a person can naturally accept charity, therefore you can conclude that a person can naturally believe in Christ. But if you agree that faith comes after regeneration, then what is your point about this natural humility?

bling said:

Again, being willing to humbly selfishly accept pure undeserved charity as charity is not something others would see as being honorable, glorious and exceptional sine the lowliest mature adult on earth go do that. What makes selfishly accepting pure undeserved charity “worthy” of anything?

Paul is not saying the unbeliever cannot make a sinful selfish choice.

Click to expand...

I don't get your point in this. If a person can naturally accept charity, how does that relate to faith after regeneration? Things that happen in the world and things that people do can point to a spiritual truth, if one looks for it. But I don't see that your argument makes a valid point contrary to the OP.

bling said:

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

The Spiritual Jew uses lots of good verses.

Click to expand...

Cults also use lots of good verses, but it doesn't mean they are righteous before God. I don't see a clear answer to my question. But I'll explain v. 17 to you, since you seem vague on it: Jesus was accommodating the Pharisees by saying "I did not come to call the righteous..." because they thought they were righteous, not because they actually were. Jesus was calling those who knew they were sinners (and actually were).

bling said:

It is obvious to me from scripture, but what is your answer to: What logical good reason does God use for those He regenerates and those He does not regenerate?

Click to expand...

Ok, finally I think this is the crux of the problem, the real issue. Why does God save some and not others? Is this a good paraphrase of your question?

God has no obligation whatsoever to save anyone. According to Eph. 2:1-3, we all came into the world living unworthily and sinfully, and are culpable for the sin we commit. And as the scripture testifies, we will all be judged according to our deeds. Nevertheless, we are not saved by our deeds, good or bad. God's grace is unmerited, which means those of us who are gifted by God did nothing to deserve it. God's mercy toward us is an exception to His justice which He will exercise eventually on everyone else. "God is just, and the justifier of the one having faith in Christ."

Therefore, God intends to exercise His justice on the world. But He has some on whom He had mercy, and called them (us) out of the world. These people will see the ultimate joy of His grace which He has bestowed on us - Eph. 2:7. So then, it was totally and completely in God's mind and in His hand who He chose to regenerate (and continues to choose, since there is a remnant of people who are still coming to Christ). Here is real spiritual humility - to acknowledge that only God has control of me being saved.

I could have been lost with the rest of the world, happily on my way to hell in a hat basket, and would certainly have deserved lake of fire judgment. But God interrupted my self-centered life, and called me out of it, that special calling talked about in Rom. 8:28 in which we are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. It's according to God's purpose, not mine.

According to a subjective and self-centered experience, it may look as though we have control of our eternal destiny. People claim "we chose to believe," which is a false idea. We choose to believe in Christ because we already believed. No one can choose to believe something they don't believe in. No one does that. We choose to submit to God and become a follower of Christ because we have been convicted by the Spirit of the truth of the gospel. And being convicted, we already know it to be true, which means we believe it. There is no unbelieving it. There may be resistance because of sin or confusion, but when the Spirit convicts, He is persistent. Such drawing is the powerful hand of God. How can God's mighty hand be resisted by our feeble foolish wills? God makes a way.

From a strictly human perspective, it looks as though you are choosing, and God is passively waiting for you to choose rightly, so that He can respond with spiritual action. But it only looks that way, because it's traditionally taught. Note the words of the song, "see on the portals, He's waiting and watching, calling 'oh, sinner, come home'." But in the spiritual realm, God is at work - revealing Himself, illuminating the truth, giving His Spirit to join with you - Eph. 2:5. Spiritual wisdom is needed to favorably respond to the gospel heard, and only God can grant that.

So the logical reason why God saves some is that He has mercy, and love, toward those He chose to save. Why then doesn't He save everyone alike? Is God obligated to that? Obviously not. How can God reveal His grace to those He saves, unless there is a contrast of the justice He exercises on those He does not choose to save? How can we gratefully appreciate God's love for us, if He loves everyone the same? God electing some out of the world induces a greater appreciation of His gracious action, and should induce greater worship of the God who saves.

dms1972 said:

I just think I have a theology, not real faith.

Click to expand...

If you have no faith, why does it concern you?

dms1972 said:

I just not sure I have faith. I've read a lot of theology, and I pick stuff up, absorb it as it were, and then go from there. I don't think thats the same as faith really.

Click to expand...

Faith looks different in different people. For some, it's mostly about emotions. Some it's mostly about intellectual questions. So what do you think you are lacking?

Xeno.of.athens said:

Karl Barth’s doctrine of salvation centres on the person of Jesus Christ as both the electing God and the elected man, with salvation understood as a divine gift grounded in God’s self-determination to be God in this particular way (Church Dogmatics II/2, §32). Barth rejects any human contribution to salvation, including moral effort or religious achievement, emphasising instead that humanity is reconciled to God solely through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Church Dogmatics IV/1, §59). Regarding repentance, Barth does not treat it as a prerequisite for salvation but as a response to the reality of reconciliation already accomplished in Christ. In Church Dogmatics IV/2, §64.2, he writes that repentance is “the act in which man recognises and confesses that he is in the wrong before God,” yet this recognition is itself enabled by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit. Thus, repentance is not a human initiative but a divinely prompted acknowledgment of the truth of one’s condition and the mercy already extended. Barth’s soteriology radically reorients traditional views by placing divine action at the centre, with human response—such as repentance—flowing from, rather than initiating, salvation.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the excellent, concise summary. It is much appreciated.

**ALSO PRAY THAT I DON'T FALL INTO SPONTANEOUS LUST**

Valletta said:

FALSE CLAIM: George Retes was wrongly arrested and held by ICE.
THE FACTS: As U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE agents were executing criminal search warrants on July 10 at the marijuana sites in Camarillo, CA, George Retes—a U.S. citizen—became violent and refused to comply with law enforcement. He challenged agents and blocked their route by refusing to move his vehicle out of the road. CBP arrested Retes for assault.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

A U.S. veteran spoke out against his wrongful arrest by ICE. Now he’s being accused of assault​

• ICE arrested Army veteran George Retes Jr. during a massive July raid at Glass House Farms in Camarillo, where he worked. He was jailed three days without charges.
• After Retes wrote an op-ed about his arrest [two months later!] federal officials accused him of assault, an allegation he strongly denies.

Click to expand...

Apple Sky said:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: Mathew 24:29

Click to expand...

Once again, "her light" can be either emitted or reflected. The Bible doesn't say.

Hentenza said:

Brother, Heb. 4 relates to entering into Jesus rest as Lord not about the sabbath rest.

Click to expand...

Brother, there is no need to speculate about the meaning of the word "rest," because Hebrews chapter 4 tells us what it means. It is not about rest in Jesus as Lord, as you suggested, contradicting the context, but about the "day" of rest known as the Sabbath, highlighted below, a "day" that Joshua misunderstood.


Again, there is no need to speculate in Hebrews chapter 4, because the meaning of the word “rest” is given to us: it is the Sabbath "day", the seventh day of creation, a “day” that Joshua misinterpreted in the following statement. In other words, there is something wrong with the Jewish understanding of the “day” of the Sabbath since Joshua.


United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Hentenza said:

All you have to do to prove your case is to post a post crucifixion verse that teaches that the 4th commandment is required of the Christian. That’s it, after all, after the wall of text that you just posted here you should be able to provide such a verse without any problems.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of my challenge to my Catholic friends to provide any clear mention of Mary after Pentecost. It just ain't there.

Tigran1245 said:

First, I didn't claim that a woman, as such, should be submissive to a man. A wife should be submissive to her husband in marriage, not women in general to men. These are different things.

Click to expand...

That's true, but I still disagree, unless we see a wife's submission in marriage as part of a dynamic in which they submit to one another, creatiting mutuality and equality.

Tigran1245 said:

I've provided a direct quote from Scripture that clearly confirms that the headship of a husband over his wife follows from the creation of a wife for her husband:

“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head“ (1 Kor 11:9-10)

Click to expand...

Let's start with looking at what headship does (and doesn't) mean. You might like to start here:

Paidiske said:

As to your further posts, no. Before the fall there was radical equality between men and women; hierarchy between the sexes is a result of sin and the fall, not part of God's original good creation.

Click to expand...

First, I didn't claim that a woman, as such, should be submissive to a man. A wife should be submissive to her husband in marriage, not women in general to men. These are different things.

Do you have any arguments in support of your position? For example, quotes from the Church Fathers, decrees of the early church councils, or a logical conclusion from Scripture? I've provided a direct quote from Scripture that clearly confirms that the headship of a husband over his wife follows from the creation of a wife for her husband:

“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head“ (1 Kor 11:9-10)

David Hine7 said:

Give me a value you would consider as being too far from 71? I wouldn't advise use your telescope in Ukraine, unless you wish to be theatre target practice

Click to expand...

Please make an attempt to answer the question as it stands: And what if it doesn't match 71 or anywhere near close to 71?

Aldebaran said:

They should have initiative to not only provide SNAP funding, but also start paying federal workers. Why pick-and-choose who gets federal funding and who doesn't? The Republican spending bill provides all the funding, with no leverage being sought against any group. How 'bout that?

Click to expand...

There it is!
I was waiting for something close to justification for not helping poor people.

Glad you didn't disappoint! Right wingers can be predictable for sure.