You combine Andrew's thinking with mine, as if we are saying the same thing (Calvin and Calvin) and then proceed to bash the associated theologies with arguments that have little to nothing to do with the statements actually made. To the point that I have [just now] decided that you do not have the ability to actually comprehend the arguments of another or the meaning of scripture that gives challenge to your weirdness. This inability is not organic. Bias has been allowed to stunt your thinking abilities and prevent you from entering into a rational discussion of differing views.
Let me give example. Although Andrew and I take differing view points, neither of us are without scriptural support. Neither are relying upon mere rationalization to make the point. You, on the other, produce not a single scripture in this, your most recent tirade.
Example #2: I certainly do not make argument for irresponsibility when it comes to sinning and I saw none of the same in Andrew's writing. When the book declares that "none are righteous, no not [even] one," your bias closes your eyes to that declaration -- one stated in the Old and confirmed in the New to a group of fellow Christians. Because of this TRUTH (Ro 3:10ff) Paul declares the substitutionary fact of faith for obedient living ( Ro 4:3). Mankind has a problem - it cannot save itself, even if filled with the Holy Spirit. God does nothing that over powers our will and ability to make decisions. We ARE responsible for our sins. That is why we share in Adam's death -- BECAUSE we have all sinned (Ro 5:12).&
nbsp; But will you accept what I have stated? No. You will continue to argue that I (and others) preach against obedience, that we glory in our sinfulness, that our gospel offers nothing to the lost except riotous living and a fun time for all.
Example #3: you haven't a clue as to election or you would not argue against the notion that our election is in (eis -- into) Christ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To argue this is to reveal a misunderstanding about the Message that is heretical.
A final point -- this is a discussion group, Judy. It is refreshing to have someone on the list that does not go to pieces when challenged (i.e. Andrew). His statements have biblical evidence and he is able to state clearly what he believes - all without sending the opposition to hell. Hopefully that is a continuing circumstance. You, on the other hand, do not discuss. You confront, challenge, insult, refuse to consider that you might possibly conceivably be mistaken about something, discount referenced sources that are not of your liking, and seldom use scripture to defend your point of view. Your stubbornness rises to the level of rebellion in all this and offers nothing in terms of healthy benefit.
Don't assume that others with whom you disagree (that would be everyone) are honest and well intentioned in their pursuit of truth. Be sure to continue to label and libel many who continue to make an appearance on this forum and care enough to contribute. After all, that is obviously what you think true discussion is all about.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:51:20 -0400
Subject: [TruthTalk] Antinomianism Refuted
Fellows, this discussion should be titled Calvin and Calvin and is one more demonstration of how mankind refuses to accept the Word of God as well as the God of the Word, so that each time a contradiction becomes apparent there arises a new rationalization to explain it away. It is uncanny.
There is for sure nothing new under the sun. Same ol' fallen Adamic flesh nature that refused to take responsibility for his choice and action back then in that garden in Mesopotamia continues to refuse to take responsibility now.
Back then it was "the woman you gave me" Today we hold to doctrines that do not conform us to godliness and holiness and so we claim it is "God's decree" for some to be saved and others lost because He ordained for some to be elect (in eis) and for others to be damned. So these doctrines have this God of love who is full of mercy and lovingkindness now violating His Own Word because these doctrines make Him a respecter of persons.
Bottom line is that if one is "elect" they have it "made in the shade" (and naturally all who authored these doctrines were part of the elect) because it is all done for them and they lack nothing. The rest are decreed to be headed for hell no matter what because of what God has ordained for them. These are the grounds upon which you two agree. Sad, sad, sad, shame, shame, shame.
andrew writes:
The idea that the written code has less authority on NT believers than OT believers would mean that God's demand for holiness has changed (and thus, God has changed.)
john: Only that the administration of His will has changed -- at least in terms of emphasis.
Andrew: But He is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
john: Such a statement does not challenge the fact that His administration has many differing expressions.
Andrew: And He gives some the perfect righteousness of Christ, whilst His wrath abides on the rest.
john: Election is in (eis) Christ and has no predetermination outside that relationship.
Andrew: The first group have no condemnation in Christ Jesus --and have full assurance that they have the imputed righteousness. The others have been reprobated based on God's will, and will be go to hell. But all must obey the written code.
