Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 310

Thread: God Chooses His Elect

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Well. Respectfully, I think he's just trying to reaffirm his own theological correctness. I don't know. I suppose that if one is only reading Reformed titles, it's just going to be that way.

    I think that S_F would do well to re-think things. Ditch the proof-texting and maybe try to see scripture in its biblical context. Acts 17:11 rings a bell here.

    But whuhteva...
    True, very true. This word comes to mind while reading his rantings...

    KJV Dictionary Definition: sottish
    sottish

    SOT'TISH, a.

    1. Dull; stupid; senseless; doltish; very foolish. How ignorant are sottish pretenders to astrology!

    2. Dull with intemperance.
    sottishness

    SOT'TISHNESS, n.

    1. Dullness in the exercise reason; stupidity. Few consider into what a degree of sottishness and confirmed ignorance men may sin themselves.

    2. Stupidity from intoxication.

    ***

    Jeremiah 4:22 (KJV)
    For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling,
    4. And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai,
    ⌈And appear from His camp⌉
    And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.

    5. And all shall be smitten with fear
    And the Watchers shall quake,
    And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth.

    6. And the high mountains shall be shaken,
    And the high hills shall be made low,
    And shall melt like wax before the flame p. 32

    7. And the earth shall be ⌈wholly⌉ rent in sunder,
    And all that is upon the earth shall perish,
    And there shall be a judgement upon all (men).

    8. But with the righteous He will make peace.

    And will protect the elect,
    And mercy shall be upon them.

    And they shall all belong to God,
    And they shall be prospered,
    And they shall ⌈all⌉ be blessed.

    ⌈And He will help them all⌉,
    And light shall appear unto them,
    ⌈And He will make peace with them⌉.

    9. And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones
    To execute judgement upon all,
    And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly:

    And to convict all flesh
    Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed,
    And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.
    A book quoted by a man that walked with our Lord.

    That some men decided later was unneeded. and was banned.

    I believe that was just one of many errors of the past.

    Want answers? Go to the Source.
    Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
    Last edited by pcosmar; 11-20-2016 at 12:27 PM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Why do you keep saying that I am authoritarian? What are you taking about? I am a voluntarist. I am not forcing anyone to believe anything. How could I? The Bible says that GOD ALONE gives faith to people.
    To be clear, suppressing open practice of false religion is NOT "forcing belief"
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Are you one of the Elect, S_F?
    And......crickets......
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    To be clear, suppressing open practice of false religion is NOT "forcing belief"
    It's not liberty either.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's not liberty either.
    If liberty be not defined by God's Word, it is worthless
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    If liberty be not defined by God's Word, it is worthless
    "Christian liberty" is defined by Jesus saying that if someone didn't accept His followers they were to shake the dust off of their feet and move on to the next down. It's defined by Paul stating that church discipline meant not associating with someone in open sin as opposed to the Mosaic Law method of civil punishment for sin. It's defined by Peter letting the Holy Spirit take care of Annanias and Safira rather than ordering men to execute them.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    The Elect?

    I believe that does not mean what you think it means..

    I believe that I do.. but we see these things only vaguely. and soon those things will be clear.

    It doesn't matter what I think it means. It matters what the Bible says it is.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    "Christian liberty" is defined by Jesus saying that if someone didn't accept His followers they were to shake the dust off of their feet and move on to the next down. It's defined by Paul stating that church discipline meant not associating with someone in open sin as opposed to the Mosaic Law method of civil punishment for sin. It's defined by Peter letting the Holy Spirit take care of Annanias and Safira rather than ordering men to execute them.
    You're confusing the church sphere of authority with the civil sphere. Should the State refuse to punish murderers? ecause if murder should be punished so should adulterous inest. And if adulterous incest should be punished, so should the other crimes of the Mosaic law. Your odd interpretation of 1 Cor 5 proves too much.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    To be clear, suppressing open practice of false religion is NOT "forcing belief"
    In my opinion, "suppressing" any false religion by force is a de facto rejection of salvation by faith alone. God is the one who gives and maintains faith, not anything on this side of eternity.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    It doesn't matter what I think it means. It matters what the Bible says it is.
    Ok,

    But I have seen it confused.. to the point of arrogance.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    The Elect?

    I believe that does not mean what you think it means..

    I believe that I do.. but we see these things only vaguely. and soon those things will be clear.
    Exactly. Only prideful and arrogant types think they have it all figured out.

    I'm glad that most here don't fall into that category.
    Last edited by lilymc; 11-20-2016 at 04:55 PM.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    In my opinion, "suppressing" any false religion by force is a de facto rejection of salvation by faith alone. God is the one who gives and maintains faith, not anything on this side of eternity.
    We need to talk about this. Didn't the Israelites suppress false religion and yey the trulyt saved ones held salvation by faith alone? If so, this argument really isn't logical.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    We need to talk about this. Didn't the Israelites suppress false religion and yey the trulyt saved ones held salvation by faith alone? If so, this argument really isn't logical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    We need to talk about this. Didn't the Israelites suppress false religion and yey the trulyt saved ones held salvation by faith alone? If so, this argument really isn't logical.
    The Israelites weren't Christians. They rejected a personal relationship with Yaweh in favor of a priesthood. Read Exodus 19 - 21 and you will see this. In Exodus 19, God told Moses to have the people consecrate themselves and then come before Him so He could speak to them. In Exodus 20, God spoke the 10 commandments. He started off by establishing His relationship with them.

    Exodus 20:1-2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.


    What did the people say when God got finished speaking?

    18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance

    19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”


    The rejected personal communication with God and demanded that Moses stand between them and God. So then Moses started laying out laws for people who did not have or want direct communication with God. Here is an example from Exodus 21.

    Exodus 21:23-25

    23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    Jesus addressed this when He said:

    Matt 5:38-39

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[b] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

    What did Jesus say the exact opposite of what Moses said? Because Moses' words were for the old covenant. The old covenant was set in place because the Israelites rejected the original covenant which is personal communion with God. The new covenant is really the original covenant. Here is what Jeremiah 31 has to say about the new covenant. This is repeated verbatim in Hebrews. I will bold the part that you are missing which is leading you to error.

    31
    “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
    with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
    32
    It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
    when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
    because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
    declares the Lord.
    33
    “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
    “I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts.
    I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
    34
    No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
    because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest,”

    declares the Lord.
    “For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”


    If under the new covenant we aren't even supposed to be teaching our neighbor about the Lord then how can we punish out neighbor for practicing a different belief system? And who does the teaching under the new covenant?

    1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

    Had the children of Israel accepted God's offer of direct communication, the priesthood of Aaron would have been redundant. But they rejected a relationship with God and therefore God had to put something in place to keep them on track. A priesthood, when one exists, must be a godly priesthood. There is nothing worse than clergy seeking power for the sake of power. That was the sin of Korah mentioned in Numbers 16.

    Now let's look back at church history. When did persecution of "heretics" begin? Why it wasn't until Constantine "legalized" (hostile takeover by the state) Christianity. And one of the first things they started doing was persecuting heretics. Now, you might agree with some of that persecution. When I hear Catholic and Orthodox Christians defend the persecution of heretics they bring up the fact that many believed things that even modern Protestants find repugnant. For example, Constantine persecuted the gnostics who taught that even sex between married people was evil. Stupid belief system for sure, but is that worth burning someone at the stake? But then we find out that some of the reformers persecuted those they thought were heretics. For example Martin Luther persecuted those who believed in baptism of repentance for all as opposed to infant baptism and confirmation of those "born in the church." Yet the overwhelming majority of U.S. Protestants support repentance baptism rather than infant baptism. So....should Lutherans and Catholics and Orthodox be persecuted for infant baptism? Should Baptists and Church of Christ and Seventh Day Adventists be persecuted for repentance baptism? Or do you just allow people to decide between themselves and God what He really wants for themselves and their children?

    Now we've had these discussions before and you're all over the map on what should or should not be a suppressed religious practice. And that is the real crux of the problem. Even you can't make up your mind on what should or should not be prohibited by law based on religious beliefs. So....why not follow the example of Jesus and move away from the Mosiac covenant and into the New Covenant?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    You're confusing the church sphere of authority with the civil sphere. Should the State refuse to punish murderers? ecause if murder should be punished so should adulterous inest. And if adulterous incest should be punished, so should the other crimes of the Mosaic law. Your odd interpretation of 1 Cor 5 proves too much.
    Not at all. You are confusing the old covenant with the new covenant. The old covenant existed because in Exodus 20 the Israelites rejected direct communion with God. Under the new covenant you aren't supposed to be trying to force your beliefs on someone else. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 makes it clear that that is the Holy Spirit's job.

    When Jesus found the woman of Samaria living in sin did He call out for her to be put to death? No. He talked to her so that the Holy Spirit could bring about repentance. I would bring up the woman caught in adultery but I know some believe that story doesn't belong in the Bible. (Though that is a VERY strange belief coming from people who otherwise claim that the Bible is infallible.) Go back and read Acts. Who was seeking to use the state to suppress religious beliefs? Why it was those suppressing Christianity. It was the Jews and in some cases the heathens. (For example Paul being beaten and put in prison for preaching against Diana.) Nowhere can you find in the teachings of Paul the idea that "Once we get the upper hand we will start using the law to suppress the religious beliefs of others."

    Oh, and what is "odd" about my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5? The fact that it proves you wrong? Paul could have said "You should take those people to the authorities and have them arrested and exiled from society." That was the punishment for incest under Roman law. (See: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Incestum.html). Rather Paul told the Christians that they themselves shouldn't associate with the offending parties. Now, if you going to question my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5, then give one of your own. Don't hide behind snide remarks that you aren't willing to back up with actual discourse. Sorry but I'm tired of such games.

    One more thing. What did Paul say about taking other Christians to court? Why he settled that in the very next chapter, 1 Corinthians 6.

    6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

    7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


    Read that carefully before responding. So in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul points out immorality in the church that is so bad that it's against Roman law. But in the next chapter Paul makes it explicitly clear that the church should handle it's on disputes and not go to the law. Church members shouldn't even take each other to court over being cheated. So why on earth would you think that Paul wanted Christians to turn people in to the law for moral failings of others? Really your biblical understanding is severely lacking.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Not at all. You are confusing the old covenant with the new covenant. The old covenant existed because in Exodus 20 the Israelites rejected direct communion with God.
    That's ridiculous.

    Under the new covenant you aren't supposed to be trying to force your beliefs on someone else. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 makes it clear that that is the Holy Spirit's job.
    No, its not. I don't even see where you are getting that from those passages.
    When Jesus found the woman of Samaria living in sin did He call out for her to be put to death? No. He talked to her so that the Holy Spirit could bring about repentance. I would bring up the woman caught in adultery but I know some believe that story doesn't belong in the Bible. (Though that is a VERY strange belief coming from people who otherwise claim that the Bible is infallible.) Go back and read Acts. Who was seeking to use the state to suppress religious beliefs? Why it was those suppressing Christianity. It was the Jews and in some cases the heathens. (For example Paul being beaten and put in prison for preaching against Diana.) Nowhere can you find in the teachings of Paul the idea that "Once we get the upper hand we will start using the law to suppress the religious beliefs of others."
    I actually do believe the adulterous woman belongs in the Bible, I just hold to Calvin's interpretation rather than your modernistic one (and no, I'm not saying Calvin is infallible or that I never disagree with him.) And you don't need a repeat of the doctrines of the civil magistrate in the New Testament, the fact that the Old Testament teaches that the civil magistrate should suppress heresy is enough. The fact that Paul didn't specifically reiterate this teaching in a context where Christians are being persecuted is irrelevant (its also not true, in Romans 13 Paul says the civil magistrates are still supposed to punish evil and reward good, and I'm convinced that this passage is prescriptive in nature. All attempts to make it descriptive, whether the majority evangelical ones or the minority libertarian ones, have problems.)
    Oh, and what is "odd" about my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5? The fact that it proves you wrong?
    Well, if true (I don't think it is) it proves too much. The same logic would then have to apply to murderers, rapists, or any other evil people that needed to be "purged" from society in the Old Testament. If you want to be consistent with this you'd have to be a pacifist. Now if you wanted to do that, I'd still think you're wrong, but its a bit harder to refute what is actually a rival internally consistent interpretation. But what both evangelicals and libertarians do with passages like this is half-hearted, wanting just enough to get their desired result (the NAP in your case, a little less harshness for the evangelical) without wholeheartedly following the logic.
    Paul could have said "You should take those people to the authorities and have them arrested and exiled from society." That was the punishment for incest under Roman law. (See: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Incestum.html). Rather Paul told the Christians that they themselves shouldn't associate with the offending parties. Now, if you going to question my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5, then give one of your own. Don't hide behind snide remarks that you aren't willing to back up with actual discourse. Sorry but I'm tired of such games.
    Yeah, the church, as the church, isn't in the business of making sure crime is punished by the civil magistrate. They are separate spheres. Christians can and should report crime when appropriate, but that's not the sphere of the church. 1 Corinthians 5 is saying the church shouldn't judge the unbeliever, it is clearly not saying that the family or the State should not.

    One more thing. What did Paul say about taking other Christians to court? Why he settled that in the very next chapter, 1 Corinthians 6.

    6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

    7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


    Read that carefully before responding. So in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul points out immorality in the church that is so bad that it's against Roman law. But in the next chapter Paul makes it explicitly clear that the church should handle it's on disputes and not go to the law. Church members shouldn't even take each other to court over being cheated. So why on earth would you think that Paul wanted Christians to turn people in to the law for moral failings of others? Really your biblical understanding is severely lacking.
    I believe the point is that Christians should not be taking each other to civil courts to be judged by pagans. That doesn't mean its always appropriate to take Christians before a civil court of other Christians, but I simply don't think that's the point of that text. The point is that its shameful for Christians to be fighting with each other in front of unbelievers, and that it would be better either to be cheated or to handle the problem internally. I completely agree with this. This is NOT a statement about proper Christian magistracy though, rather its a statement regarding how Christians should handle their own affairs when governed by wicked pagans. Again, this proves too much. If a Christian murders another Christian, should they not go to the civil magistrates? To even ask such a question is to answer it. That's not the point.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The Israelites weren't Christians. They rejected a personal relationship with Yaweh in favor of a priesthood. Read Exodus 19 - 21 and you will see this. In Exodus 19, God told Moses to have the people consecrate themselves and then come before Him so He could speak to them. In Exodus 20, God spoke the 10 commandments. He started off by establishing His relationship with them.

    Exodus 20:1-2

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.


    What did the people say when God got finished speaking?

    18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance

    19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”


    The rejected personal communication with God and demanded that Moses stand between them and God. So then Moses started laying out laws for people who did not have or want direct communication with God. Here is an example from Exodus 21.

    Exodus 21:23-25

    23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    Jesus addressed this when He said:

    Matt 5:38-39

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[b] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

    What did Jesus say the exact opposite of what Moses said? Because Moses' words were for the old covenant. The old covenant was set in place because the Israelites rejected the original covenant which is personal communion with God. The new covenant is really the original covenant. Here is what Jeremiah 31 has to say about the new covenant. This is repeated verbatim in Hebrews. I will bold the part that you are missing which is leading you to error.

    31
    “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
    with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
    32
    It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
    when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
    because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
    declares the Lord.
    33
    “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
    “I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts.
    I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
    34
    No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
    because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest,”

    declares the Lord.
    “For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”


    If under the new covenant we aren't even supposed to be teaching our neighbor about the Lord then how can we punish out neighbor for practicing a different belief system? And who does the teaching under the new covenant?

    1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

    Had the children of Israel accepted God's offer of direct communication, the priesthood of Aaron would have been redundant. But they rejected a relationship with God and therefore God had to put something in place to keep them on track. A priesthood, when one exists, must be a godly priesthood. There is nothing worse than clergy seeking power for the sake of power. That was the sin of Korah mentioned in Numbers 16.

    Now let's look back at church history. When did persecution of "heretics" begin? Why it wasn't until Constantine "legalized" (hostile takeover by the state) Christianity. And one of the first things they started doing was persecuting heretics. Now, you might agree with some of that persecution. When I hear Catholic and Orthodox Christians defend the persecution of heretics they bring up the fact that many believed things that even modern Protestants find repugnant. For example, Constantine persecuted the gnostics who taught that even sex between married people was evil. Stupid belief system for sure, but is that worth burning someone at the stake? But then we find out that some of the reformers persecuted those they thought were heretics. For example Martin Luther persecuted those who believed in baptism of repentance for all as opposed to infant baptism and confirmation of those "born in the church." Yet the overwhelming majority of U.S. Protestants support repentance baptism rather than infant baptism. So....should Lutherans and Catholics and Orthodox be persecuted for infant baptism? Should Baptists and Church of Christ and Seventh Day Adventists be persecuted for repentance baptism? Or do you just allow people to decide between themselves and God what He really wants for themselves and their children?

    Now we've had these discussions before and you're all over the map on what should or should not be a suppressed religious practice. And that is the real crux of the problem. Even you can't make up your mind on what should or should not be prohibited by law based on religious beliefs. So....why not follow the example of Jesus and move away from the Mosiac covenant and into the New Covenant?
    Start with Deuteronomy 13.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Start with Deuteronomy 13.
    Exodus comes before Deuteronomy.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    That's ridiculous.
    No. It's fact. I laid all of that out in the post that you flippantly ignored. It's all in Exodus 19 - 21.

    No, its not. I don't even see where you are getting that from those passages. I actually do believe the adulterous woman belongs in the Bible, I just hold to Calvin's interpretation rather than your modernistic one (and no, I'm not saying Calvin is infallible or that I never disagree with him.) And you don't need a repeat of the doctrines of the civil magistrate in the New Testament, the fact that the Old Testament teaches that the civil magistrate should suppress heresy is enough. The fact that Paul didn't specifically reiterate this teaching in a context where Christians are being persecuted is irrelevant (its also not true, in Romans 13 Paul says the civil magistrates are still supposed to punish evil and reward good, and I'm convinced that this passage is prescriptive in nature. All attempts to make it descriptive, whether the majority evangelical ones or the minority libertarian ones, have problems.)
    It doesn't matter what interpretation it is that you use. Jesus and Paul both made it clear that Christians aren't supposed to be going to civil authority to enforce moral matters.

    Well, if true (I don't think it is) it proves too much. The same logic would then have to apply to murderers, rapists, or any other evil people that needed to be "purged" from society in the Old Testament. If you want to be consistent with this you'd have to be a pacifist. Now if you wanted to do that, I'd still think you're wrong, but its a bit harder to refute what is actually a rival internally consistent interpretation. But what both evangelicals and libertarians do with passages like this is half-hearted, wanting just enough to get their desired result (the NAP in your case, a little less harshness for the evangelical) without wholeheartedly following the logic.
    No it wouldn't. Did Jesus get the thief off of the cross? Nope.

    Yeah, the church, as the church, isn't in the business of making sure crime is punished by the civil magistrate. They are separate spheres. Christians can and should report crime when appropriate, but that's not the sphere of the church. 1 Corinthians 5 is saying the church shouldn't judge the unbeliever, it is clearly not saying that the family or the State should not.
    Sure. Crime. Your personal belief on infant baptism shouldn't be considered a crime. Luther thought such things should be considered a crime and would have had you killed. So would Calvin. Think about that.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #50
    God leaves many things to the dumb ass people.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    God leaves many things to the dumb ass people.
    Dumb people take on the things of God. and confuse the hell out of them.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    God leaves many things to the dumb ass people.
    Including your contribution to this conversation, I fear.

    I'm not going to get too far into this because it's already descended into a mud-slinging competition, due in no small part to a couple of posters that have chosen to simply cry and whine about Calvinism rather than actually debate the verses in question. Sola is not a Calvinist, you cannot be a Calvinist and also be a Baptist, people who say otherwise after he has himself has said he is not a Calvinist are either lying or stupid.

    But I will say that the civil authority ABSOLUTELY has not only the right, but the duty to suppress the open practice of false religion. Salvation by Faith Alone has nothing to do with denying the role of the magistrate in defending the church, especially when considering Romans 13, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13-17, John 14:21, Galatians 5:22-23, and 1 John 2:4. This should only further demonstrate that Sola's anarchistic views on church authority are not in line with Calvin's view or the broader Reformed Churches, or even Martin Luther's for that matter, but Arminians gonna Arminian and accuse everything they don't like of being Calvinistic, I suppose.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Including your contribution to this conversation, I fear.

    I'm not going to get too far into this because it's already descended into a mud-slinging competition, due in no small part to a couple of posters that have chosen to simply cry and whine about Calvinism rather than actually debate the verses in question. Sola is not a Calvinist, you cannot be a Calvinist and also be a Baptist, people who say otherwise after he has himself has said he is not a Calvinist are either lying or stupid.

    But I will say that the civil authority ABSOLUTELY has not only the right, but the duty to suppress the open practice of false religion. Salvation by Faith Alone has nothing to do with denying the role of the magistrate in defending the church, especially when considering Romans 13, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13-17, John 14:21, Galatians 5:22-23, and 1 John 2:4. This should only further demonstrate that Sola's anarchistic views on church authority are not in line with Calvin's view or the broader Reformed Churches, or even Martin Luther's for that matter, but Arminians gonna Arminian and accuse everything they don't like of being Calvinistic, I suppose.
    You are mixing categories, putting politics in with religion. Where in Romans 13 is there any prescription for a theocracy? Paul was speaking there of the evil Roman authorities who were murdering Christians.

    Also, how can you say that I am anywhere close to an Arminian? YOU have expressed Arminian sentiments, not me. I have a 1000 percent monergistic theology. I do not accept any kind of synergism, whereas you do.

    If you are following Calvin in either his politics or theology, and that leads you to reject monergism or believe in theocracy, then I proudly reject Calvin.
    Last edited by Sola_Fide; 11-21-2016 at 05:06 PM.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post

    I'm not going to get too far into this because it's already descended into a mud-slinging competition, due in no small part to a couple of posters that have chosen to simply cry and whine about Calvinism rather than actually debate the verses in question. Sola is not a Calvinist, you cannot be a Calvinist and also be a Baptist, people who say otherwise after he has himself has said he is not a Calvinist are either lying or stupid.
    Wait. Will you show us where in the Bible that God said that he took away our ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin? I'm sorry that you think we're stupid. Are you, like S_F claims to be, a theologically correct authority on such matters? If so, then show us your wisdom, please. Given that entire doctrines are based on it, I think it should be there in precise, bold, letters directly from God himself some place and similarly direct as He was when He had mentioned that we were damned to thistles and thorns and physical death and painful births and whatnot.

    And, yeah, S_F pretty much promotes the false Gospel of Total Inability and Unconditional Election. He strategically functions in an organized manner so as to stimulate the idea of a spiritual division among Christians. He likes to create the illusion of a worthier-than-thou class of Christians based on the false Gospel of Total Inability and Unconditional Election. He tends to remove scripture from its Biblical context and tag it with a universal meaning in order to lend the illusion of legitimacy to that unbiblical belief. That's Calvinism 101. I mean, if I'm lyin, I'm dyin.

    I can link you to hundreds of such instances of his theological snobbery and elitism if you don't believe me. It's just a couple of clicks.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-21-2016 at 05:53 PM.

  29. #55
    @jmdrake-I'm not sure if its really true that Luther and Calvin wanted not baptizing infants to be punished by the death penalty. If that's true, I'd disagree with them. The Law of Moses doesn't support such a thing. But that's not really relevant to the disucssion.

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Including your contribution to this conversation, I fear.

    I'm not going to get too far into this because it's already descended into a mud-slinging competition, due in no small part to a couple of posters that have chosen to simply cry and whine about Calvinism rather than actually debate the verses in question. Sola is not a Calvinist, you cannot be a Calvinist and also be a Baptist, people who say otherwise after he has himself has said he is not a Calvinist are either lying or stupid.

    But I will say that the civil authority ABSOLUTELY has not only the right, but the duty to suppress the open practice of false religion. Salvation by Faith Alone has nothing to do with denying the role of the magistrate in defending the church, especially when considering Romans 13, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13-17, John 14:21, Galatians 5:22-23, and 1 John 2:4. This should only further demonstrate that Sola's anarchistic views on church authority are not in line with Calvin's view or the broader Reformed Churches, or even Martin Luther's for that matter, but Arminians gonna Arminian and accuse everything they don't like of being Calvinistic, I suppose.
    As a clarification, while Sola doesn't believe in Reformed theology, he would hold to the "five points" (what often passes for Calvinistic nowadays). He's not an Arminian. I'm not sure if that's what you meant though.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    @jmdrake-I'm not sure if its really true that Luther and Calvin wanted not baptizing infants to be punished by the death penalty. If that's true, I'd disagree with them. The Law of Moses doesn't support such a thing. But that's not really relevant to the disucssion.

    As a clarification, while Sola doesn't believe in Reformed theology, he would hold to the "five points" (what often passes for Calvinistic nowadays). He's not an Arminian. I'm not sure if that's what you meant though.
    My point about Arminianism had to do with people accusing Sola of being a Calvinist when he has said on multiple occasions that he is not and that he has fundamental disagreements with Reformed theology. The last thing I would do would be to accuse Sola of being an Arminian, if I had to put him in a category (I know he would not like me doing that) it would close to a classic Primitive Baptist. Believing in Double Predestination, Total Depravity, Irresistible Grace, Unconditional Election, and so on alone does not make one either a Calvinist or part of the Magistrate Reformed movement. I wouldn't refer to John Gill as being a Calvinist, and I'd be hesitant to even ascribe that label to someone like George Whitefield.

    Anyway, it's good to be back, sorry I haven't gotten around to answering your question on that other thread, I've been burning the candle at both ends and haven't been spending that much time on this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Wait. Will you show us where in the Bible that God said that he took away our ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin?
    Genesis 8:21 - And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. (hmm, the heart is evil in man from his youth, but he is good enough to find Jesus without intercession by God)

    Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (the heart is desperately wicked, but good enough to seek Jesus without a change in nature)

    Matthew 15:9 - For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: (yeah, this sounds like something worthy of heaven and able to receive God, if God approved of all the stuff in question)

    I can multiply these verses a few more times for you, but for now we'll keep this simple. Scripture does not really depict Man in a Fallen state as being able to do much other than reap his own destruction, and only God's Providence has really kept that from happening, though Providence alone does not speak to saving faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    'm sorry that you think we're stupid. Are you, like S_F claims to be, a theologically correct authority on such matters?
    If you don't want to be referred to as stupid, don't make stupid statements about Sola being a Calvinist. He has said that he isn't, and his positions don't match the doctrine to a sufficient level to warrant the title. When Sola becomes a Presbyterian and cleans up his views on Sanctification, Church Government, Infant Baptism and about a dozen other issues, then you can mock him for being a Calvinist.

    I did not claim to be a correct authority on matters, but I did very much claim that you have been consistently wrong on several matters on which you have chosen to opine. For now, we'll just stick to Sola's being a Calvinist (according to you and a few others) being wrong.

    If so, then show us your wisdom, please. Given that entire doctrines are based on it, I think it should be there in precise, bold, letters directly from God himself some place and similarly direct as He was when He had mentioned that we were damned to thistles and thorns and physical death and painful births and whatnot.
    http://www.fivesolas.com/tulipscriptures.htm

    I have no wisdom apart from the Reformed Faith, read through the Canons of Dort and then get back to me with your answers.

    And, yeah, S_F pretty much promotes the false Gospel of Total Inability and Unconditional Election. He strategically functions in an organized manner so as to stimulate the idea of a spiritual division among Christians.
    Calvinism and the Reformed Faith do not teach spiritual division among Christians, this should clue you in that Sola is teaching something distinct. Spiritual divisions only exist between the reprobate and the elect. The kind of divisions that you are thinking of are sectarian divisions, and those don't need to be promoted, they should be plain to anyone who walks into a meeting house and sees sodomy and infanticide being celebrated by the congregation.

    He likes to create the illusion of a worthier-than-thou class of Christians based on the false Gospel of Total Inability and Unconditional Election.
    Total Depravity does not teach a worthier-then-thou class of Christians, the doctrine specifically states that NO ONE is worthy. Unconditional Election is grounded in the principle that election is 100% removed from the will and actions of fallen man.

    He tends to remove scripture from its Biblical context and tag it with a universal meaning in order to lend the illusion of legitimacy to that unbiblical belief.
    You have yet to demonstrate a single scripture that contradicts the two doctrines in question. In fact, you yourself tried to raise the notion of removing scriptures from their biblical context to a veritable art form in order to justify forbidding the biblical observance of Communion with wine, so you're not really one to talk on such things.

    That's Calvinism 101. I mean, if I'm lyin, I'm dyin.
    Empty, snark-drenched rubbish like this is the reason why I referred to you as being stupid. You're in Rachel Maddow territory right now dear boy.

    I can link you to hundreds of such instances of his theological snobbery and elitism if you don't believe me. It's just a couple of clicks.
    Your problem with Sola seems to be his style. You'll have no disagreements with me on that front, but that's more of a Baptist quirk, not something germane to Reformed doctrine. I have a slight aversion to non sequiturs, hence why I didn't want to go too deep into this conversation, but oh well.
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 11-21-2016 at 09:47 PM.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    You are mixing categories, putting politics in with religion. Where in Romans 13 is there any prescription for a theocracy? Paul was speaking there of the evil Roman authorities who were murdering Christians.

    Also, how can you say that I am anywhere close to an Arminian? YOU have expressed Arminian sentiments, not me. I have a 1000 percent monergistic theology. I do not accept any kind of synergism, whereas you do.

    If you are following Calvin in either his politics or theology, and that leads you to reject monergism or believe in theocracy, then I proudly reject Calvin.
    No Sola, Romans 13 is commanding obedience to The Law in spite of the Magistrate (Rome) being made up of heathens and sinful men. Heresy is not suddenly permissible simply because the U.S. Constitution celebrates it.

    And no Sola, I did not call you an Arminian, I was calling your critics that by lumping you in with Calvinism. I was trying to put some distance between you and myself because some people on here seem to love the idea of lumping us in together simply because we have some fundamental agreements regarding Predestination and Sovereign Grace.

    The bible supports a synergistic view of Sanctification, the concept of sanctification itself presupposes a growing degree of cooperation by the New Man following his Justification and Adoption, hence why there are all these commands to follow the law and grow in grace through ongoing regeneration. You don't command something of people unless they have been imbued with the ability to carry out those commands. Nowhere in the history of the Reformed Churches did Calvin or his successors assert that Sanctification being synergistic is mistaken, this is an overreaction by Baptists following the Savoy Declaration when Arminianism began to creep into the Anglican Church.

    On a final note, I want to make it clear that if you read Calvin's Institutes as written below, Sola's positions are not reconcilable with his regarding the issue of works and sanctification:

    Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (1 Cor. 1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness (Institutes, 3.16.1).

    This is fully in harmony with Augustine of Hippo's and the Apostle Paul's views on the question of works. Works, by their very nature, are synergistic when done in accordance with one who has already been fundamental changed by God's sovereign grace and justified. Anyone from here on out who refers to Sola as being a Calvinist will be mocked mercilessly by yours truly as either a liar or a fool complete with the jester's cap. If you want to argue for or against Sola's positions, do it on the merits.

    I didn't want to get sucked into another back and forth with Sola because I know he and I are at an irreconcilable impasse. The same is also true for every "Evangelical" type on here. It's a sad thing to say but I'm starting to find the eventuality of arguing with Romanists a bit more appealing of late.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post

    Genesis 8:21 - ...for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth...
    Oh, I see. So, then, Adam wasn't morally perfect? Thank You. I didn't think I saw anything in Genesis that told us that he was. Leave it up to God to tell us precisely otherwise, huh? And so concisely, He did.

    By that bit of scripture, all by itself, this worldly concoction of false Gospel that perpetuates the lie that Man lost his ability to receive God as a result of Original Sin falls squarely on its face, doesn't it? It sure does. A logical fallacy, it is. Patently.

    I'll take it that no further reading of your wall of text would be germane. It's a good thing that you mentioned Gen. 8:21 first.

    Of course, you are free to disagree. Right? Of course, you are. That's the beauty of free will. But anyway. It would appear that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate Adam's moral perfection if you're gonna try to support this worldly concoction that God took away Man's ability to receive Him as a consequence of Original Sin. I don't know how you can do that seeing as you just pridefully shared with us the Word of God which tells us precisely that Man's heart is evil from his youth. You can try to demonstrate for us why you think Adam was morally perfect, I suppose. But original innocence, unfortunately for your argument, doesn't equate to perfection in nature. "Good" does not equate to morally perfect. Then again, you're very sure of yourself, aren't you? You're very prideful. But you'd be going against the Word of God to say otherwise, you know. That's kinda ballsy, man. It's kind of a naw naw, too. It's arrogant. And self-righteous. Self-serving. This, of course, is the arrogance of doctrinal education. I mean, God just got done saying up there in Genesis that Man's heart is evil from his youth. Did He not? Sure, He did. He absoluely did. But hey. Who am I to judge? I'm the stupid one.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-22-2016 at 04:04 PM.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Dumb people take on the things of God. and confuse the hell out of them.
    Well spoken.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Well spoken.
    Mm. Yeah. pcosmar is a man of few words. But clear and concise is always best. Agreed.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-21-2016 at 11:21 PM.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Kissinger Chooses Jeb as His Candidate
    By AuH20 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-10-2015, 11:18 PM
  2. who chooses electors?
    By cindy25 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-17-2012, 08:44 AM
  3. Missoula GOP chooses Paul
    By Redmenace in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 11:39 AM
  4. Hunter Chooses Huckabee
    By Karrl in forum Other Presidential Candidates
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 01:27 AM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-03-2008, 01:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •