Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Knight said:I had to go with the third option on this one...
Not a subject I've dug into... Nor care to.
cygnusx1 said:would it be possible for those gifted in a knowledge of science (my education is limited) take a look at this thread ...... fresh minds , are you up for it ?
http://www.christianforums.com/t244...27#post20943071
Jon_ said:I fired a salvo back at Double D. If he responds, I'll take up his comments, but the rest of the thread just looks like the usual tripe.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon
Indeed, he does. It's too bad too because he suffers from a strongly secular worldview. He really thinks that science provides him with truth about reality. He's fallen into scientism, the idolatry of the age. The following passage addresses the matter quite succinctly. Just mentally replace "wisdom" with "science."cygnusx1 said:thanks Jon , I notice that when someone meets DD on his own ground (understands where he is coming from ) he disappears
frumanchu said:God from all eternity decided to glorify Himself in a new creation in His image. God foreknew with perfect certainty all contingencies of that new creation...how he would act given whatever God chose to do or not do. In keeping with His formal purpose of glorifying Himself, He chose to bring about through secondary causes the transgression of this first man, bringing he and those whom he represented covenantally under the wrath and condemnation of God. To further manifest His glory, He chose to set His love upon a number of them and redeem them to Himself through the death of Christ. The rest He was content to leave in their condemnation that His justice might be manifest.
Jon_ said:I have no desire to enter into an ugly argument, so I will try to convey my thoughts in as non-antagonistic of a tone as I can. My interest to be edifying in this manner.
That you cite Charnock as your source really makes me want to find the passage (since I love Charnock); but at the same time, the thought of trying to skim all 1000+ pages of the Existence and Attributes is really forebidding. Maybe I'll keep it in mind and wait to write down the source when I reach that point in the book.Rolf Ernst said:Many years ago, I was reading a theologian who made the point that in all His attributes, God is infinite; and that though we will never grasp the breadth of His infinite perfections, we can grasp the thought that any doctrinal view which portrays Him as less than another doctrinal view is necessarily in error because infinite perfection is never excelled.
When we consider the supralapsarian/infralapsarian issue in that light, while realizing at the same time the place the covenants have in manifesting His glory, doesn't it make us realize that the supralapsarian view must be more proper doctrine? Who can doubt that especially concerning this doctrine, the sovereignty of God is most clearly displayed?
P.S.: I believe I read that in Charnock's Existence and Attributes of God.
Sorry, Jon. I have looked for it, but have not found it. Perhaps I read it elsewhere. Wherever it was, it was much more clearly stated than I was able to repeat. I am 69 and there are so many resources that too often when I try to credit someone, I do no one any favor. But I may recall the source more fully later. I'll keep it in mind, hoping to find it. It was so much more clearly an apparent truth the way the original author expressed it that it is worth anyone reading it.Jon_ said:That you cite Charnock as your source really makes me want to find the passage (since I love Charnock); but at the same time, the thought of trying to skim all 1000+ pages of the Existence and Attributes is really forebidding. Maybe I'll keep it in mind and wait to write down the source when I reach that point in the book.
Oi, I tell ya, I love Charnock and the Puritans, but why did they have to use such tedious language? I love Warfield and Hodge too, but man, reading their volumes is just so laborious. Why couldn't they put things more concisely?
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon
ReformedAnglican said:Why did God allow the Fall?
McWilliams said:The whole purpose of God is to bring glory to His great name!
This is supported "in essence" by Romans 3:21, which says "the law entered that the sin might abound, for where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." It is not necessarily valid to infer that the fall carried such an intention only from this verse, but the theme is strikingly similar. (That is, sin entered that God might show grace. In fact, Covenant Theology almost demands a supralapsarian view of the decree.)ReformedAnglican said:Agreed, the point is however that God had a plan in decreeing the fall. My position is that the fall was decreed to place all in sin so God could elect and reprobate hence God decree to reprobate and elect must be logically prior to the fall, i.e. supralapsarianism.
calmcoolandelected said:Gosh, I remember looking these up one time but I don't remember what they mean! Off to research!
CC&E
Bravo!! Well said, Reformed Anglican. Keep up the good work in our Lord's vineyard.ReformedAnglican said:Agreed, the point is however that God had a plan in decreeing the fall. My position is that the fall was decreed to place all in sin so God could elect and reprobate hence God decree to reprobate and elect must be logically prior to the fall, i.e. supralapsarianism.
How does this kind of thing edify the body of Christ? What does it mean to the person sitting in the pew?
To me, the pastoral concern of the logical order of the decree is the testimony of the sovereign plan of God to glorify himself through the redemption of mankind.mlqurgw said:How does this kind of thing edify the body of Christ? What does it mean to the person sitting in the pew?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?