The Doctrine of Sin
The Doctrine of Sin:
Definition: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.
Exodus 20:1-17 The 10 Commandments: Are not only commandments of actions, but of attitude. In verse 17 the word covet is used. How does one covet a neighbor's wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor? We covet is a word that is used to describe an attitude of the heart. A wanting of what is not yours. It is not just a passing...oh, that is a nice car...I want that. It is an attitude that says, I want that car and I will do whatever it takes to get it!
Jesus also spoke of attitudes being sinful in Matthew 5:22, 28. Andger and lust. But not only these are against God's moral law! Paul expands the list to jealousy, anger, and selfishness in Galatians 5:20.
This speaks to action and attitude, but where many differ is this last portion, our nature!
We are sinful by Nature, our character, the essence of who we are! Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:3.
Sin is directly opposite to all that is good in the charater of God, and just as God necessarily and eternally delights in himself and in all that he is, so God necessarily and eternally hates sin. It is, in essence, the contradiction of the excellence of his moral character. It contradicts his holiness, and he must hate it.
But where did sin come from?
God did not create it!!! He did not sin, and cannot be blamed for sin!!!!
It was man and angels who sinned and they sinned willfully and voluntarily.
Gods work is perfect in every way (Deut. 32:4; Gen 18:25; Job 34:10; Jas 1:13).
On the other hand though we cannot say that there is an eternally existing evil power. There is none equal to God.
But, God did ordain that sin would come into the world. He doesn't delight in it, but in giving us free will to make choices...God allowed for us to disobey and act contrary to His Character...which is SIN.
Sin was present before Adam and Eve sinned...the Angelic world had already seen the fall of Satan and the demons. But in respect to mankind...Adam and Eve were the first to sin.
How does sin typically work?
1. It stricks us at our thirst for knowledge. It gives a false answer to the question, "What is True?"
2. It stricks us at our moral standards. It gives a false answer to the question, "What is right?"
3. It stricks us at the core of who we are. It gives a false answer to the question, "Who am I?"
Correct answers to these questions:
1. God's word is truth. (Gen 2:17)
2. God's word is morally right. (Gen 2:17)
3. I am a creature of God. (Gen 1:27)
False answers to these questions:
1. Something other than God's word is truth. (Gen 3:4)
2. Something other than God's word is morally right. (Gen 3:5)
3. We can be like God. (Gen 3:5)
Sin is irrational!!!
It was foolish for Satan to rebel against God. Or for Adam and Eve to think they could gain from Disobeying God...
1. They were created by God.
2. God loved them very much.
But what is even more foolish is to continue in Sin and Rebellion against God. (Ps. 14:1; Prov 10:23; 12:15; 14:7, 16; 15:5; 18:2)
Sin at its basic level is Rebellion against God. A hatred of your creator.
When you actually think about it, sin is completely irrational:
Why would almighty God, who is love, who is good, who is just, who is HOLY (PERFECT), why would He create for anything other than to have fellowship with us and to Love us?
When we rebel against Him in sin, we break His heart. He chases after us wanting to show His Love.
God has given us a Provision for our sins! You see sin requires that a blood sacrifice be made to attone for it. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ into the World...not to condemn the world but to save it by going to the cross and dying in our place so that we could enjoy fellowship with the Father once again.
When we sin we trample this blood and we make a mockery of Jesus Christ!!! Our Provision!!!
But this sin that we have talked about is sin that we have committed knowingly...what about Inherited Sin?
We will get to that in the next post.
For now, know that you are Loved by God Almighty and that there is still time and still Grace for anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the Salvation for their sins.
In Christ,
David
Definition: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.
Exodus 20:1-17 The 10 Commandments: Are not only commandments of actions, but of attitude. In verse 17 the word covet is used. How does one covet a neighbor's wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor? We covet is a word that is used to describe an attitude of the heart. A wanting of what is not yours. It is not just a passing...oh, that is a nice car...I want that. It is an attitude that says, I want that car and I will do whatever it takes to get it!
Jesus also spoke of attitudes being sinful in Matthew 5:22, 28. Andger and lust. But not only these are against God's moral law! Paul expands the list to jealousy, anger, and selfishness in Galatians 5:20.
This speaks to action and attitude, but where many differ is this last portion, our nature!
We are sinful by Nature, our character, the essence of who we are! Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:3.
Sin is directly opposite to all that is good in the charater of God, and just as God necessarily and eternally delights in himself and in all that he is, so God necessarily and eternally hates sin. It is, in essence, the contradiction of the excellence of his moral character. It contradicts his holiness, and he must hate it.
But where did sin come from?
God did not create it!!! He did not sin, and cannot be blamed for sin!!!!
It was man and angels who sinned and they sinned willfully and voluntarily.
Gods work is perfect in every way (Deut. 32:4; Gen 18:25; Job 34:10; Jas 1:13).
On the other hand though we cannot say that there is an eternally existing evil power. There is none equal to God.
But, God did ordain that sin would come into the world. He doesn't delight in it, but in giving us free will to make choices...God allowed for us to disobey and act contrary to His Character...which is SIN.
Sin was present before Adam and Eve sinned...the Angelic world had already seen the fall of Satan and the demons. But in respect to mankind...Adam and Eve were the first to sin.
How does sin typically work?
1. It stricks us at our thirst for knowledge. It gives a false answer to the question, "What is True?"
2. It stricks us at our moral standards. It gives a false answer to the question, "What is right?"
3. It stricks us at the core of who we are. It gives a false answer to the question, "Who am I?"
Correct answers to these questions:
1. God's word is truth. (Gen 2:17)
2. God's word is morally right. (Gen 2:17)
3. I am a creature of God. (Gen 1:27)
False answers to these questions:
1. Something other than God's word is truth. (Gen 3:4)
2. Something other than God's word is morally right. (Gen 3:5)
3. We can be like God. (Gen 3:5)
Sin is irrational!!!
It was foolish for Satan to rebel against God. Or for Adam and Eve to think they could gain from Disobeying God...
1. They were created by God.
2. God loved them very much.
But what is even more foolish is to continue in Sin and Rebellion against God. (Ps. 14:1; Prov 10:23; 12:15; 14:7, 16; 15:5; 18:2)
Sin at its basic level is Rebellion against God. A hatred of your creator.
When you actually think about it, sin is completely irrational:
Why would almighty God, who is love, who is good, who is just, who is HOLY (PERFECT), why would He create for anything other than to have fellowship with us and to Love us?
When we rebel against Him in sin, we break His heart. He chases after us wanting to show His Love.
God has given us a Provision for our sins! You see sin requires that a blood sacrifice be made to attone for it. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ into the World...not to condemn the world but to save it by going to the cross and dying in our place so that we could enjoy fellowship with the Father once again.
When we sin we trample this blood and we make a mockery of Jesus Christ!!! Our Provision!!!
But this sin that we have talked about is sin that we have committed knowingly...what about Inherited Sin?
We will get to that in the next post.
For now, know that you are Loved by God Almighty and that there is still time and still Grace for anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the Salvation for their sins.
In Christ,
David
posted by Mark 1:17 at 7:13 PM
21 Comments:
knowledge of our true state is the first step toward salvation.
(This has been copied from Barque of Peter, so that david is mroe likely to see it. David, you're welcome to delete this and respond at Barque, or whatever you want.)
Sorry it took me so long to get back here.
Gregory said: "Hidden One, thank you for your defence, and your timely alerting me to your posting it, even though that obliterated my initial reply to David, because it served to do two things. 1) it kept me from perhaps responding too defensively and injuredly to David's comments, and 2) it did let me know that David is still poking his head in here, perhaps to see what others are saying, and, as such, I hope he will read my reply to him, even if he chooses not to reply. God worked his grace through you here, H1."
Indeed - Credit Him, not me (as you have done).
Now, to back up a step...
Mark 1:17: "In no way have I lofted myself above anyone, and if it seems that way, I am sorry and I apologize and ask for forgiveness."
Consider it received (that is, done).
Mark 1:17 "Also, it isn't about impatience at all. I take a lot of time to respond and pray through my responses be for I post them. I have other trusted brothers read through the responses and offer advise as well. Please do not think that I rush responses. This diologue between Gregory, Jacob, and myself, as well as a few others has been going on for almost a year now...if not longer. It really isn't about impatience.
There are few people in this world that can anger me, and I do rarely get angry...so I need to cut this off."
Impatience in that sense was rather not what I was trying to get at... what I meant was the patience of correction. That is, taking the time to clarify the part where you have been misinterpreted, and to generally remove the words from yuor mouth which were not thered. (Rather like I am doing.) I never said that you fire off your posts in a two-minute burst: I haven't seen much of your writing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. That is to say, I'll trust you.
mark 1:17 "Writen text is also very hard to add in emotion. This whole post here was written with a heart of humility, but it could also be taken in a very arrogant way. I hope and pray that you do not take this in an arrogant way, but in a posture of humility."
I take this post with the heart of humility in which you meant it.
mark 1:17 "If you have questions that I can answer, I would be more than happy to chat with you, but with Gregory, I must cut it off completely."
Well, then, I have two tests of this for you...
You said: "Writen text is also very hard to add in emotion. This whole post here was written with a heart of humility, but it could also be taken in a very arrogant way. I hope and pray that you do not take this in an arrogant way, but in a posture of humility."
Therefore Gregory said :"I wholeheartedly agree. But while you plead that excuse for your comments to me, you don't even seem to consider it as a possibility in my comments to you. I see this as a double-standard. Like you, I apologise if my words came across as you complained they did. But as well, like you, I assure you that that was not my intent."
I ask that you believe Gregory when eh says this, and, just as importantly, that you would apply that possiblity to any and all comments and posts fo mine (even if it is nto somethign you can do for Gregory.)
This is important, because I do have a question:
"Why is Sola Fide true, and why are the arguments against it full of holes?"
I ask this because I am (currently) a Protestant, but after extensive investigation and debating (this mostly with Gregory), I cannot logically support it.
Well, last week, I asked Jacob, at his blog, to explain to me why Sola Fide is correct, and he went to my blog (www.wyidbsa.blogspot.com) and put forth an argument. I have since countered it, (and several others, all Catholics) who frequent that lbog have weighed in. Well, I'd ask you, if you have time, to visit that blog and weigh in yuorself. (Because I don't know if Jacob will respond again, and I know that the Protestant view will be better defended with two people, and I don't want Jacob to feel as if he is being overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers.) Admittedly, this woudl be more debate than chat, but such is the life of those who wish to debate.
(So you are forewarned: I respond peac-by-peace to arguments and such for simplicity and such, so dont' be surprised, adn be not afriad to correct me if I misrepresent something: it is not on purpose.)
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
Hidden One,
A quick response to your post.
I will add a post on Faith Alone. However it will come after the current series on Humility which is currently in portion 2 and will be followed by portion 3.
Then I have already been asked to do a post on TULIP.
I need to finnish the series on Humility!
Then I will get to TULIP and Faith Alone.
I hope that I can do most of this before the new year...but I don't know.
As for the comment about Gregory...He knows where Jacob and I stand all to well. We aslo know exactly where He stands. There is no impatience we have gone over the same things time and time again. And now it is time for it to stop...it has gone on long enough...it is that simple.
As for Debating...I don't do that...I will state my position, I will listen to others comments...I will state my position again and that is it. I don't debate.
I believe that the Word of God has power without me. That the Spirit of God will convict me of the points that I need to be strong on and not waver (based upon Scripture) and that is it.
Gregory keeps saying to Jacob that Jacob never comes up with new arguements when Gregory has torn appart Jacobs stance.
Well, Jacobs doesn't need to come up with a new deffence for His stance...it is Biblically sound...anything other than biblically sound is not biblical and would be false!
The problem lies in the aspect that both are using the Bible...however, It is up to the Spirit of God to lead us into the Truth and show us which position is Biblical and which position is false.
100% Truth is Truth.
99% Truth and 1% lie is 100% lie!!!
This has always been Satans tactic...go back to the Garden account...Satan used truth mixed with lie to decieve Adam and Eve.
First thing we must do. Give our live 100% unto the Control of Jesus Christ and none other! There is no Christ and ... There is only Christ!!!! He is our Life and Light, then we must ask the Spirit to show us the Truth of these issues and ask Him to Reveal to us the lie that we may see it for what it truly is.
You, Jacob, and Gregory are in my prayers.
Have a wonderful CHRISTmas!!!
In Christ,
David
I'll in turn (as well as praying for the Truth to be evident to all - the whole Truth) pray that you have the time to finish up your various commitments - I know I'm looking to find time to get up my response to Jacob on Sola Scriptura, so anything you did up on Sola Fide right now wouldn't get much mroe than a good readthrough.
Merry CHRIST-MAS[S]!!!
Sorry. Had to do that. ;p
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
David, I'm sorry, but I have to point out something here in my defence.
You correctly state my frustration with Jacob that he has no further argument when I've shown his to be in error, but then you say that he needs no further argument, because his original statements are "biblically sound." But this is the difficulty. In our last go at it, his argument was not biblically sound, and I was often able to demonstrate that from the very same passage that he used to refute the Catholic position.
You admit: "The problem lies in the aspect that both are using the Bible..." And this is precisely the problem. We both can ably weild scripture, and yet arrive at opposite conclusions. Unless you accuse me of purposefully twisting scripture, what other explanation do you have for this situation? You say, "however, It is up to the Spirit of God to lead us into the Truth and show us which position is Biblical and which position is false." But how exactly do we know to whom the Spirit is revealing the truth of what Scripture is saying? Your "solution" leads to an anti-intellectual subjectivism: "Me, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit." But it is precisely this mentality that has led to so many differences of opinions and interpretations of the Scripture throughout these past 500 years, and to the many thousands of denominations rampant in Protestantism. Each of us will say that the Holy Spirit is speaking to and directing himself, but the Spirit is one of Truth, not of error or division. Neither you, nor Jacob, nor I agree about what the Bible teaches, and, if Jacob is right, then I do preach a different Gospel. But, it seems to me, that you do as well. After all, who it was that Jesus died for is fundamental to what "the Gospel" is, right? Well, you accept TULIP, and Jacob doesn't. In specific, he rejects Limited Atonement, believing instead that Jesus died for everyone. It seems to me that if you accept all of TULIP (partly why I'm eagerly awaiting your post(s) on it), then you hold to a "Different Gospel" than Jacob.
As for your stance on debating, I accept it (tolerate it, really), but don't see it as being very fair or honest. If you're going to proclaim your opinion, belief, faith, etc. in a venue where people are sure to disagree, then it is certainly incumbent on you, as an evangelist, to provide a defence of that belief. Peter himself instructs us to do so: 1 Peter 3:15. The only times I've undertaken to debate you or Jacob is when you've made direct statements against my Catholic faith. I don't go looking for the fight. So it seems somewhat disingenuous that if you are going to make statements antagonistic to my beliefs, to turn around and say "I'm not going to discuss it with you" when I defend those same beliefs.
Anyway, I've rambled on, and said more than perhaps I wanted to. I'm not asking for dialogue, just for the elimination of the double-standard that says that Jacob's argument is biblically sound, but my biblically-based argument is "99% truth + 1% lie = 100% lie." If you think my arguments aren't biblically sound, demonstrate to me why it is that they aren't. That's all I ask.
God bless, and merry Christmas.
Gregory
The gospel is salvation in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone. David and I both believe that is the gospel as does any true born again believer.
Limited atonement versus unlimited atonement is merely two different views on the extent of the atonement of Christ, it is not about how a person is saved. Both sides would agree that it is by faith alone in Christ that we are saved.
And on that note, after studying limited atonement further I have accepted it as my position. I've been convinced by Scripture recently in its validity, but that doesn't mean I've changed what gospel I believe in.
"And on that note, after studying limited atonement further I have accepted it as my position. I've been convinced by Scripture recently in its validity, but that doesn't mean I've changed what gospel I believe in."
Sorry, and I don't mean to start a debate here, but could you explain your definition of 'gospel' as used here and elsewhere?
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
Of course it does, Jacob! If Christ didn't die for all men, then all men cannot be saved. (Note, that's different than saying all men will be saved.)
If Christ did die for all men, then all men at least have the possibility to respond to His Grace in faith for salvation.
If Christ did not die for all men, then indeed, God does show partiality! But the Bible clearly says He does not. If Christ did not die for all men, then the One Righteous Act is not greater than the One Sinful Act, since Adam's sin affects us all, but Christ's death can only affect some (cf Romans 5:12-21).
If Christ did not die for all of us, then God truly does not desire that all would be saved and come to knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).
So it very much seems to me that that those who believe TULIP are indeed believing a different Gospel than those who do not.
Considering the very real similarities between our positions on how faith and works pertain to Salvation (which, it seems, is more a matter of semantics than actual theology), our real difference is over that letter L than anything else. And until recently, we agreed on that one!
gospel means good news. So the gospel is the news about how a person can be saved by Jesus. Answer: By god's grace through faith in Christ.
Gregory, do you believe in election / predestination?
Jacob, I agree and believe in that definition of the Gospel. The problem is, is that there are theological outworkings of the Gospel, which are important, but which are not the Gospel themselves. You claim we preach a false Gospel, but we preach the Gospel precisely as you have stated it. Where we differ is on points beyond your definition above.
As to whether I believe in predestination and election, yes I do. Have I thought long and hard about it? Admittedly not. It's not been a big issue for me. I am planning to study it some more in the near future.
What I believe about it, though, is that God predestines, but does so in a way that mysteriously does not violate man's free will.
I posted a comment but it doesn't seem to have come through. I wonder if this one will? If it does, I will post my original.
Christopher
"What I believe about it, though, is that God predestines, but does so in a way that mysteriously does not violate man's free will."
The explanation that I use, is basically that God knows what's gonna happen, and why, and has His plan, because He knows what everyone's gonna do, and knows what He's gonna do (adn can do) that will lead us to make choice x. However, we still get to make choice x. He just knwos what's gonna happen.
Ex: I am holding a chocolate bar. I can choose to eat it, or not to eat it. Anyone who has ever met me is quite likely to realize that I'm going to eat it 99 times out of 100. (Furthermore, Im' going to eat it NOW.)But I still choose to eat it, of my own free will. God, knowing more about me than I do, never mind anyone else, will know when I will not eat the chocolate bar, and seeing everything, knows whether stimuli is in place. But I still make the decision. I can predict what is going to happen tomorrow. God predicted it with perfect accuracy a long time ago. I fail to see why a predicted choice is any less a choice.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One
*wonders over to Christmas chocolate stash... Will I eat any of it? Stay tuned. ;)
The slight problem with your description, H1, is that it still, inadvertently, puts God in the position of Guess. An incredibly, all-knowing Guess, but still. This is bourne out by your term "Prediction."
Rather, God being outside of time, doesn't experience the passage of time like we do. For God, all moments are NOW. He lives in the Eternal Present. The moment at which He created Adam and Eve was for Him the same moment that He, as Jesus, died on the Cross, and again, the same moment that I am typing this, and again, the same moment that He will return to judge the world. Time is not laid out in a successive motion from past to present to future, as it is for us, but is always Present.
Therefore, God knows what we are going to do tomorrow, because for Him, tomorrow is already Now.
Beyond that, at the moment, I cannot further penetrate the Mystery of His Predestination and our Free Will. And it is a Mystery, ultimately as incomprehensible as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ.
God bless.
Then consider my revised and slimmed down argument, less the word prediction.
"What I believe about it, though, is that God predestines, but does so in a way that mysteriously does not violate man's free will."
The explanation that I use, is basically that God knows what's gonna happen, and why, and has His plan, because He knows what everyone's gonna do, and knows what He's gonna do (adn can do) that will lead us to make choice x. However, we still get to make choice x. He just knwos what's gonna happen.
Ex: I am holding a chocolate bar. I can choose to eat it, or not to eat it. Anyone who has ever met me is quite likely to realize that I'm going to eat it 99 times out of 100. (Furthermore, I'm going to eat it NOW.)But I still choose to eat it, of my own free will. God, not restricted by time, knows when I will not eat the chocolate bar. But I still make the decision. I can predict what is going to happen tomorrow. God knew it with perfect accuracy since before He began time. I fail to see why a known choice is any less a choice.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One
*I didn't eat any.
Jacob,
Gospel also means 'promise'. Just so you know.
More, the difficulty with systems that limit Christ's atonement is not so much the idea that Christ didn't make atonement. Even an unbelieving atheist can take a critical look at history and conclude that "yeah, there was a guy named Jesus who died with the intention to save a bunch of people who believed in him. The difficulty is that it limits God's grace and makes Him out to be capricious. Muslims believe in 'L', too; so what differentiates the perspective of Limited Atonement from that of the Islamic claims to Allah's saving actions? Allah knows before-hand whom he is going to save, and whom he is not. According to 'L', so does Yahweh. This is why a good number of Christian scholars -- say, most conservative Lutheran, Anglican, and Catholic scholars -- see a very definite similarity between the Islamic notion of salvation, and the Calvinist notion of Limited Atonement, and the Communication of God's Attributes.
I suggest you do a little more research into this topic before jumping onboard with it. It can severely limit your credibility in theological, and evangelistic circles.
Gregory,
I sometimes wonder if you get pulled into an unnecessary semantic argument about the use of the word 'Gospel', and the way it plays out in theological debates. In particular, David and Jacob seem to snare you with the accusation that you 'preach a different gospel.'
I think you did a good job of distinguishing what 'gospel' means when you agreed with Jacob's use of the word. And I think you did a stellar job of noting how using the word 'gospel' necessarily entails how the gospel plays itself out in theological systems, and hermeneutics. For the record, I think it would be supremely important to let your critics know that when you say 'gospel' you mean 'the good news of Christ's birth, death, and resurrection.' On that basis alone, I think you could open a flood-gate of communication between yourself, David, and Jacob, even despite their academic sensitivities (e.g., not appreciating your apologetic aptitude).
From there, maybe they will see that you are saying many of the same things they are, and the boogey-word "Catholic" might not limit their ability to understand your intentions, passions, and commitment to others' salvation in Christ, by grace, in faith.
All,
There is only one gospel: Christ born, dying, and rising again for our salvation. Communal, or denominational differences cannot, and will never be able to preclude that. Don't mix up the method of theology with the aim of theology. The method is what you are arguing about: faith alone, Scripture alone, different Gospel, blah, blah, blah. The aim is what needs to be present in all your so-called differences: salvation in Christ.
If a Southern Baptist, Calvinist, Catholic, or Coptic church-goer brings someone to Christ... well then, hallelujah! What more can we ask? How does their church affiliation add anything to that? It doesn't. All it does is help them "work out their salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).
Christopher J. Freeman
All,
Have have remained silent on this topic...mainly to see where it would go.
Needless to say...I dissagree!
As I have stated before...I don't debate...I see no point in it.
If you care to continue this debate...please do it elsewhere.
As for my view on freewill vs. predestination...I think you know where I stand but I will include that as another post.
But I think that from what I have been posting on sin...you might already have an idea of what exactly I believe our dispossition to be.
Anywho...
Like I have said, if you want to debate this, you can feel free to do it at Gregory's page or Hidden One's page.
In Christ,
David
P.S.
Christopher,
There is not only one gospel, but there is only ONE TRUE GOSPEL!
You have listed it well, Christ coming to Earth, born as a man, living a sinless life (fully God and fully Man), dying on the Cross in our place, and Rising again in Glory!
This is the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
And as Jacob has pointed out it is GOOD NEWS.
And as you have pointed our it is a GREAT PROMISE from GOD!
However...when other things are added or removed from the Gospel it ceases to be the TRUE Gospel!
I am not pointing any fingers...but when I post on freewill vs predestination you will understand what I mean and where I am coming from.
David,
You wrote: "I am not pointing any fingers...but when I post on freewill vs predestination you will understand what I mean and where I am coming from."
With no disrespect intended, if you post on free-will vs. predestination, where you come from will not be understandable. Both are supported from Scripture, therefore there is no versus. Classic theology, on both the Roman Catholic and Reformation side hold to the Scriptural paradox of a both/and, not an either/or. It is not until Calvin that we see the illogical swing toward a versus.
In any case, God bless you in your endeavours.
Christopher
Christopher,
You will understand where I am coming from after I write out a post.
You have assumed you know exactly where I am coming from. But in all honesty you do not know my position!
Freewill vs predestination is just a catchy title for a post. It gets people interested.
Kind of like a Title "Superman is DEAD".
That would get peoples attention...if there really was a superman.
So, I would ask that you not so quickly assume things and judge. Again, you don't know where I am coming from.
Thanks,
In Christ,
David
David,
Alright. Fair enough. I'll wait. Looking forward to it.
Christopher
For the record, I just answered Jacob's question, and corrected Hidden One's misuse of a word. I wasn't debating.
Chris, I've defined "The Gospel" as such to David and Jacob before, in an attempt to do the very thing you suggest. It hasn't gotten us far.
Anyway, fun conversation while it lasted. I too am looking forward to David's post on Predestination.
God bless
Gregory
I just wondered what gregory thought about it. I didn't know there was all of this dialouge about it until today.
Post a Comment
<< Home