フランシスコ会
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
Japanese
フランシスコ会 (フランシスコかい, furanshisukokai)
- The Franciscan order; An order of the Catholic church following the beliefs of St. Francis of Assisi
See also
> Bob Felts wrote:
> >
>
> > > >
> > > Is it too great of a thing to comprehend that God designed man's
> > > freedom such that He could determine him without destroying his
> > > freedom?
> >
> > Well, yes, it is. It happens to be a self-defeating statement because
> >of the inherent contradiction. Which is one form of hypocrisy (in
> >thought instead of action).
> >
> Calvin quotes Augustine: defining liberum arbitrium (free will) as "a
> power of reson and will by which good is chosen when grace assists and
> evil is chosen when grace is wanting."
Does this definition apply to the unsaved, or to the saved? I might,
after additional consideration, agree with this as concerning the saved;
but it simply isn't the case for the unsaved. For the simple reason
that the unsaved man cannot influence the bestowal of grace; therefore
his will isn't free.
>
> Aquinas wrote that holy "free will is not an independent causality.
Therefore, it is a dependent causality. "Dependent" and "free" are a
contradiction in therms.
> God works in the finite will in the way that the nature of it requires
> that he should; although, therefore, he changes the inclination of ma
> to another direction, nevertheless, by his almighty power he causes
> that man should frely will the change which he experiences; and thus
> all constraint is removed.
More gobbledygook. "He causes" and "free" are contradictory.
> For to suppose otherwise, that the man willed not the change which is a
> change in his will, would be a contradiction."
The man does will it, because God sovereignly willed it. There is no
contradiction, until one tries to insert the word "free".
>
> As I wrote elsewhere, "The difference between the 2 kinds of
> self-determination is marked in language. The noun 'sin' has an active
> berb to correspond with it; the noun 'holiness' has none.
Sure it does. To be holy is to be set apart. There's a verb in there
somewhere.
> Sin is 'sinning' or 'to sin' but holiness is not 'holying' or 'to holy.'
To set apart.
> Only the passive is employed in the latter case: 'to be holy' or 'to
> become holy.' But both the active and passive are employed in the former.
> Man is willing in holiness and he is willing in sin. But the willingness
> in the first case is complex.
Only because you insist in trying to set free that which isn't free.
> God works in man to will (Phil 2:13).
"According to _His_ good pleasure." No freedom for man there.
> The willingness in the second case in simple. Man works alone.
Not possible, "for in Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts
17:28)
> In the first instance, the human will harmonizes with the divine will. In
> the second, the human will antagonizes the divine will. In the first
> instance, the voluntariness is receipient: "What have you that you did
> not receive?" (1 Cor 4:7; Rom 11: 35); "you have received the spirit of
> adoption" (rom 8:15). In the second instance, the voluntariness is self
> originating."
>
> Does that help explain my point?
While it may explain it, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
