They knew that widening the income gap between the rich and poor (tax breaks, bailout options for the rich) is going to lead to this. Statistics prove this.

But whatever brings more money to their pockets. The love of money is the root of all evil.

I don't know what will work. Prayer? Or actually turning from their corrupt / flawed ways.

Dikaioumenoi said:

The verse isn't collapsing the categories I highlighted. It's conditional: "if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." The conditional is not optional.

Click to expand...

Hmm, funny, the passage sure presents it as optional. In fact, the conditional is always optional-that’s the point.

Dikaioumenoi said:

It defines the very category of those who truly share in Christ. So the category "share in Christ" refers to believers who persevere. This is clearly distinguished from the category of those who "taste" the heavenly gift (experience or exposure only), 6:4-6.

Click to expand...

No, there’s no distinction made there about those who share in Christ not being able to fall away from Christ.

Mercy Shown said:

The Sabbath sits right there in the Ten Commandments. In fact, it has become the icon of the Law for many Sabbatarians. It is the punchline of many moralistic arguments and the centerpiece of Sabbatarian doctrine. To them, it is to be kept just as strictly as any of the other nine commandments. Yet the others carry natural, immediate consequences when violated. For example, if I kill someone, I may be killed myself or imprisoned for the rest of my life. If I covet my neighbor’s wife, I may end up in the hospital or the morgue. Sabbath breaking, however, has no such visible consequence. That creates a battleground where Christians often cross swords.

What fascinates me most is how people use the broad platitude “keep the Sabbath,” even to the point of wearing the label “Sabbath Keeper.” It certainly comes with the temptation to look down on those not “discerning enough” to agree with Sabbath keeping, and it can be an ego boost for those who enjoy a sense of spiritual superiority. Not all are like that, of course. There are many sincere Sabbath keepers who do so with humility and love, considering themselves no better than anyone else.

Yet for most who carry the label, the one thing they rarely address is the specifics of true Sabbath keeping. The moment one asks “How should it actually be practiced?” disagreements erupt. The Sabbath-keeping community is deeply divided over what is appropriate and what is not. It is far easier to remain in the comfort of the broad label than to open the can of worms and define the boundaries. Still, if Sabbath keeping is truly salvific, should the precise observance of it not be extremely important? One would hate to wear the label all their life only to discover they had been doing it wrong.

I could give examples, but for now, I will leave the worms in that can a little longer.

Click to expand...

Jesus broke the Sabbath. These verses can't be explained away.

John 5:16-18

16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

I'm with Jesus here.

PloverWing said:

So: Not a prophet, and not a messenger of God, but still being used by God. And not divine punishment of the nation, but divine correction of the nation. Is this closer to what you're trying to say?

The answer to my next question may be "God's ways are inscrutable", but I'll ask it anyway. The 2016 Republican primary had 17 different candidates at the start. Do you believe that God chose Trump in particular out of that field of candidates? If so, can you speculate about what qualities in Trump made God choose him as the agent of change, rather than Cruz, Kasich, Santorum, and so forth? (That is, I see that from your point of view, you'd want one of the Republicans to be president. But why do you believe that God chose Trump in particular, rather than one of the others?)



Truly, my purpose is to try to understand you and those like you who believe Trump is chosen by God to do God's work. I'm not trying to convert you or persuade you; obviously, you and I disagree and will continue to disagree. But I want to understand your point of view. You have said that "God chose Trump for this country in this time for His purpose", and I want to understand what you mean when you say that.

Click to expand...

Some forget that God allowed bad rulers to lead as a way of punishing a nation. Jeroboam and Manasseh of Judah were bad kings.
Just because a man is the leader does not mean God approves of them.



Trump is not representative of a godly leader in any way. He will say the right words then act differently. His many instances of fraud (Trump U, Trump Foundation, lies on tax forms, etc) do not reflect a godly man. The adultery in his life do not reflect God. The sexual assaut in his life do not reflect God. The tremendous amount of lying does not reflect God.

God allowed Trump to the presidency, but Trump will bring the country down. Thousands are losing jobs, including manufacturing ones. Housing is in a recession per Bessent. Tariffs have just groups such as farmers. Trump's recent agreement with China for soy farmers is less than what soy farmers would have gotten had not Trump started the tariffs in the first place. For many reasons, public opinion of Trump is the worst of any president 1st or 2nd term.

partinobodycular said:

We're still waiting to see how @Bradskii is going to achieve this feat, but I can guarantee you that it'll be some version of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

Click to expand...

which is not an "is" statement so cannot be the bridge from is to ought, because the question then becomes how that was derived. And whether that is a moral absolute, since @Bradskii denies that such absolutes exist.

BobRyan said:

Your so-called "anti-christ Jews" in the case above are those Jews living at the time of Christ and also many centuries before Christ. Jews that kept sacred scripture preserved in the Temple and declared to be blessed by God for doing so, in Rom 3:1-4

Click to expand...

By 90 AD the jews who were settling the canon were those who rejected Jesus, and the temple had been destroyed.

BobRyan said:

Rom 3​

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

They were the ones entrusted with the oracles of God, entrusted with defining and preserving the Hebrew Bible, entrusted with that canonized text unchanged since the time of Malachi as their own historian points out.

Bashing them in the shoot-from-the-hip fashion we see in your post , is not in line with Paul's teaching in Rom 3

Click to expand...

I'm not "bashing them", I'm pointing out that the exclusion of the Greek books that happened at the turn of the 2nd century by the Jews was an attempt to de-legitimize Christianity which was dependent on the Greek OT in the Old Greek and the Septuagint.

BobRyan said:

Heretics have existed in every age. That does not justify bashing the people of God in every age. I think we can all agree on this point

Acts 17:

Paul at Berea​

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

Click to expand...

You're reading your presuppositions into the text here

BobRyan said:

Paul at Berea​

Acts 17:
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

1. They had what they call "Scriptures" long before the council of Jamnia

Click to expand...

Yeah, and the Scriptures they had included the books excluded from the Hebrew corpus by the Jews.

BobRyan said:

The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

Luke 24:
26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

...

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

Luke's readers had the concept of "ALL the SCRIPTURES" in Luke 24. This was long before any so-called "Jamnia" event.

Click to expand...

So then the Jews at Jamnia removed Scriptures when they excluded those books found in Greek.

BobRyan said:

Christ taught "from all the scriptures" according to Luke 24 and Luke's readers knew what that meant as they read his gospel

This is irrefutable.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and Christ taught from the books excluded in the Protestant canon.

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is linguistically absurd. You're projecting English connotation back onto Greek. The meaning of a Greek word is not determined by what an English gloss happens to suggest in modern English. It's determined by its usage within the Greek corpus. This is translation theory 101. Languages encode meaning differently. Glosses are approximations, not carbon copies.

As a case in point: the English verbs "draw" and "haul" overlap in meaning, but they are not equivalents. You can "draw (run) a bath," but you cannot "haul a bath" (unless you plan to carry the tub down the street). That's how semantic range works.

Now extend that principle cross-linguistically: when a Greek term is rendered by an English gloss, the gloss represents only a slice of its range in that specific context, not its full conceptual map. So the fact that our English "draw" can, in some contexts, mean "lure" or "appeal" tells us precisely nothing about how ἑλκύω functions in Greek. Languages are not mirrors of one another; they organize meaning differently. Greek uses other words to convey some of the connotations our English word "draw" is able to cover. ἑλκύω is much more restrictive in its usage.

If John wanted to suggest attraction or enticement, he had clearer options. He would have used something like the prepositional compound προσελκύω (πρός + ἑλκύω), where πρός introduces a directional or intentional aspect, literally "to draw toward oneself." That can allow for a sense of "appeal," but not ἑλκύω by itself. So the fact that John uses ἑλκύω and not προσελκύω is significant. He emphasizes effectual drawing, not an optional lure the sinner might resist.

Click to expand...

This whole thing is an unnecessary use of lots of words to create a rabbit trail into la-la land. Of course, the English doesn’t determine the Greek but both, for example, happen to take a simple word that first involves moving objects while also using it metaphorically to mean impelling internal movement of a person. And this use is a logical extension of the word’s original meaning. The real difference in this thread is in whether or not that effort is resistible.

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is a terrible attempt to make your point. ἑλκύω here describes an action resisted by the weight of its own result, not an unsuccessful attempt. The net is full, not empty. The verb still carries its normal force: "drag/haul with decisive power." The limitation lies not in the verb's weakness but in the fisherman's strength. The action succeeds too well; the net strains under the abundance.

So far from weakening the verb's meaning, the text reinforces its effectual sense (hence the rendering, "haul"). ἑλκύω consistently conveys the exertion of power sufficient to move the object. The problem is not that it "failed," but that it worked too effectively for human hands to manage.

Click to expand...

No, the action fails because there was resistance! Otherwise, it would be like saying an irresistible force was, um, resistible. They caused the net to move and yet the net didn’t move. They moved the net with decisive power and yet the net didn’t move. Indecisive decisiveness? Etc.

Dikaioumenoi said:

The Father's drawing is what makes coming possible. So if that drawing can fail, then your view doesn't preserve human freedom; rather, it simply denies divine efficacy altogether. It implies that God can try to enable faith and still fail to enable it. Not just fail to persuade someone to come to Him, but fail even to make it possible for them to to do so.

Click to expand...

Why? If I throw a man a life preserver and he refuses to grab hold does that mean I failed to make it possible for him to be saved?

Dikaioumenoi said:

That's not grace. That's horrifying impotence.

Click to expand...

Oh, horrifying. Certainly no more horrific than the fate of the poor bloke whom God determines not to regenerate in your theology. At least in mine both have some part in the choice as to where they’ll spend eternity.

Dikaioumenoi said:

No, ἐπιστρέψας indicates a habitual, repeated action, not a momentary lapse. The context is a warning against false teachers and apostates: those who once had the appearance of godliness or exposure to truth but never experienced genuine internal transformation. Animals cannot change their nature. You could feed a dog only the finest meals, pampering that puppy with a lifestyle most human adults would only dream of, but the moment it vomits, you would still have to pull it away from it. The point of the proverb is precisely that a creature's nature does not change apart from God's supernatural work. Applied to people, those who repeatedly return to their former corruption reveal a heart that is fundamentally unchanged, not a regenerate believer momentarily stumbling.

You didn't address my reference to the contextual parallel in 1 John 2:19.

More importantly, we're off on an irrelevant tangent until you address the argument from John 6:44 that regeneration entails a real, effectual union with Christ. Anyone drawn by the Father is enabled and secured; to suggest they could fall away contradicts the very efficacy the text promises.

Click to expand...

It’s simple, whoever perseveres to the end in doing God’s will, will be saved. And no one can predict their own perseverance BTW. And they may also be deceived about God’s will to begin with.

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is nonsensical. To effect a change is, by definition, to succeed in bringing it about. If the attempt fails, nothing has been effected. Saying "attempting counts as causation" is like claiming I caused a ball to score a goal because I kicked it, even though I missed the net entirely. My effort or intention is irrelevant; the only thing that counts as an effect is what actually happens.

Click to expand...

I used "means" there in the sense of "intends". IOW, causation, simply, does not guarantee movement or effect, any more than attempting ἑλκύσαι (to haul in) their net guaranteed that it’d make it into the boat. To put it another way, you kicked the ball but the ball didn't move, or failed to reach all the way to the goal. Again, God allows for our resistance.

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is a misuse of 2 Cor. 5:20-21, which concerns the proclamation of the gospel -- Christ's reconciliation of the world externally, calling sinners to repentance -- not the internal, effectual work of salvation in the elect. The text addresses God's mission to the world, not a limitation on His sovereign power to secure the salvation of those He draws.

Click to expand...

Everyone is appealed to. Some will respond and some will not. Those who do are reborn: forgiven and given a new heart and spirit. Some will turn out to be poor soil and some good. That's what we know. God wants none to perish (2 Pet 2:9). But yes, I know, “none” doesn’t really mean “none”- and God doesn’t really love the whole world-nor did Jesus die for it.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Suggesting God "stops short" to avoid producing "automatons" introduces a philosophical, not biblical, constraint on divine power.

Click to expand...

No, it's just what He chooses to do, for our sake. To put it another way, love is a human choice even as it's a gift of grace to begin with, the ultimate choice for goodness over evil that comes to the extent that we choose and draw near to Him. That is our justice/righteousness and our salvation. If you don't yet understand that then you're probalby still just locked into word and concepts. You're faith is real, but needs further enlightenment.

Apple Sky said:

They don't interpret, that's the beauty.

Click to expand...

They certainly do, if they teach flat earth.

Rescued One said:

Who remembers George Washington's portrsit in every classroom?

Click to expand...

And of course saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning.

BPPLEE said:

If Rete's story is true he should have a good civil case, what he alleges happened is a violation of his rights

Click to expand...

Such suits are stacking up.

Postvieww said:

Sounds like a typical I hate Trump rant. Our allies and enemies were either laughing at or shocked by the Biden fiasco. Demolished the White House??? Are you kidding?? If you are talking about the ballroom project, other presidents have also made physical changes and most likely they were at taxpayers expense. Trump is doing his best to save this nation from the certain demise we were headed for under liberal leadership.

Click to expand...

Ya, a three sentence “rant” against the only person who can “save” this nation. Would you like to see a third term in spite of the current constitution?

Apple Sky said:

They don't interpret, that's the beauty.

Click to expand...

But they do. If they teach a flat earth based on scripture then they are indeed interpreting scripture and interpreting it wrong. No church teaches a flat earth so their interpretation is unique to them.

Aristarkos said:

You make yet another mistake, the law and the covenants are two different things. Both the old and the new covenant are about the law.

You can read more about the covenants here: The Five Key Covenants God Makes With Humans in the Bible

Aristarkos

Click to expand...

And good to see you again !!

# 1. And there is. the ABRAHAMIC Covenant.

# 2. The PALESTINIAN Covenant

# 3. DAVIDIC COVENANT

# 4. THE NEW COVEANAT

#. 1 So , is the OLD COVENANT in Force today , if you believe it is with a VERSE ?

# 2 Is. the NEW COVENANT in. Force TODAY ?? Need a verse ??

#. 3 How is. anyone saved in. the NEW COVENANT. ?? Need a verse ??

# 4. SAVED By Water ? need verse ??

# 5. If you are saved under the NEW COVENABT. , WHERE. do you go . to HEAVEN ?/

# 6. Or do you got to HEAVEN. ?? Will need a verse ??

dan p

Hentenza said:

But their interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.

Click to expand...

They don't interpret, that's the beauty.

Apple Sky said:

Of Saul ..........

The army of the Philistines approached and had threatened the covenant people, which disturbed the king (1 Samuel 28:4-5).

He was not able to consult the Lord through any of the legitimate ways, so in desperation he sought for the very people he banished.

He requested a medium and was sent to the home of a woman at En Dor (v. 7). Saul met the woman in a disguise and asked her to “bring up” Samuel the prophet.

The woman was aware of the law of the land and that Saul had banished her kind of people from practicing their sorcery. (vv. 8-9). After a promise from Saul that the Lord would not punish her, she attempted to bring up Samuel and to her own surprise, he actually came back to life! (vv. 10-12).

The exchange between Samuel and Saul at this point is reminiscent of prior conversations. Saul asked Samuel what to do about the Philistines, and Samuel responded by reminding Saul that YHWH had departed from him and gave the kingdom to David because of Saul’s disobedience.

Samuel then told Saul that he and his children would die in battle and be “with” Samuel (vv. 16-19).
And he did.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

So do you believe that ghosts do come back to visit us ?

Click to expand...

The passage you have taken has hardly anything to do with what one would think a ghost story.

It is about necromancy.

Here is a commentary by Rashi on verse 14," What is his form?" (how does he look)

Three things were said concerning necromancy

1, The one who conjures him (the dead) up sees him, but does not hear his voice.

2, The one who inquires of him hears him, but does not see him, therefore , he asked "what is his form".

3, Others neither see nor hear him.

Though Saul had abolished the necromancers he told his servants to seek a necromanceress.

PloverWing said:

So: Not a prophet, and not a messenger of God, but still being used by God. And not divine punishment of the nation, but divine correction of the nation. Is this closer to what you're trying to say?

The answer to my next question may be "God's ways are inscrutable", but I'll ask it anyway. The 2016 Republican primary had 17 different candidates at the start. Do you believe that God chose Trump in particular out of that field of candidates? If so, can you speculate about what qualities in Trump made God choose him as the agent of change, rather than Cruz, Kasich, Santorum, and so forth? (That is, I see that from your point of view, you'd want one of the Republicans to be president. But why do you believe that God chose Trump in particular, rather than one of the others?)



Truly, my purpose is to try to understand you and those like you who believe Trump is chosen by God to do God's work. I'm not trying to convert you or persuade you; obviously, you and I disagree and will continue to disagree. But I want to understand your point of view. You have said that "God chose Trump for this country in this time for His purpose", and I want to understand what you mean when you say that.

Click to expand...

The God of the universe knows the hearts of men . He know their motives , thoughts and abilities. Those are things we cannot really know about men just by their campaign slogans alone. Whether you agree with Trump or not it is abundantly clear he came into office fulfilling promises at lightning speed all the while be hindered at every turn mainly by rogue judges, liberal governors and mayors. If I were to speculate as you ask I would say from past performance Trumps getter done drive was a factor, but I still don’t think that us mere mortals are qualified to question or fully comprehend God’s motives.

NxNW said:

If you have a cat, that may be the reason.

Click to expand...

No cat.

Hentenza said:

Your shirt gets holier as it gets old just like your faith. It’s in the front so that all can see.

Click to expand...

Don't hide your lamp under a bushel!

childeye 2 said:

Every moment a choice is being made either voluntarily or involuntarily simply because I must be doing something at all times so long as I am alive.
The existence of the faculty of reasoning <-- The mechanism to weigh pros and cons is not in question. The New Testament expresses a will as a desire in the moral/immoral context, and is not referring to the existence of the faculty of reasoning as a will.

Click to expand...

Reasoning only plays into deliberation and planning, not the ability to select among the options

childeye 2 said:

Fervent said:
Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy? <--This is what I am responding to. It has to do with the will being expressed as a desire/determination.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and you didn't really answer my question.

childeye 2 said:

The existence of the mechanism by which we weigh pros and cons does not indicate the will. The determination would indicate a will either misguided nor not. I would say that the freedom to form an opinion is a form of slavery compared to the freedom of knowing what is factually true.

Click to expand...

War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

Apple Sky said:

This is why I listen to Rob & Dean, as they both always quote from Scripture. They don't just make things up, if it's not in the Bible they would never quote it.

Click to expand...

But their interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.

Strong in Him said:

If it's not in Scripture it will just be a guess, or wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

This is why I listen to Rob & Dean, as they both always quote from Scripture. They don't just make things up, if it's not in the Bible they would never quote it.

Fervent said:

Stating it "exists" is a bit of a misnomer, because it's not some detached object. It's a genuine reflection of our ability, though not an independent entity.

Click to expand...

Every moment a choice is being made either voluntarily or involuntarily simply because I must be doing something at all times so long as I am alive.
The existence of the faculty of reasoning <-- The mechanism to weigh pros and cons is not in question. The New Testament expresses a will as a desire in the moral/immoral context, and is not referring to the existence of the faculty of reasoning as a will.

Fervent said:

Ok...I'm not sure what this has to do with a discussion on free will.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:
Are you saying that Jesus' words imply people will not be held blameworthy? <--This is what I am responding to. It has to do with the will being expressed as a desire/determination.

Fervent said:

There's no reason to suppose that freedom of choice is either non-existent or sinful. Questions of moral/immoral are more tangential to the discussion or at least are second-order issues

Click to expand...

The existence of the mechanism by which we weigh pros and cons does not indicate the will. The determination would indicate a will either misguided nor not. I would say that the freedom to form an opinion is a form of slavery compared to the freedom of knowing what is factually true.

This thread is taking “confidently wrong” to a new level.

Clare73 said:

Wrong question. . .

Where does Scripture say/present man with an unfettered/free will; i.e., able to make all moral choices, including the choice to be sinless?

It does not. . .in fact, Scripture presents quite the opposite. . .we are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34). . .slaves are not free.

Free will of man is a human notion (Pelagius), nowhere stated in Scripture and based on the assumption that responsibility for sin requires total free will. . .not in God's order.

Click to expand...

Are you stating that our choices are not "free" from the influence of sin? We are, in a spiritual sense, bound by sin, which limits our true freedom thus free will does not exisit?

Your shirt gets holier as it gets old just like your faith. It’s in the front so that all can see.