Amends

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

English

Etymology

French amendes, plural of amende. Compare with Amende.

Pronunciation

IPA: WEAE /ʌˈmɛnds/

Noun

used as both sigular and plural

1. Compensation for a loss or injury; recompense; reparation.
   • As to you, Mr. Carruthers, I think that you

have done what you could to make amends for your share in an evil plot. —Doyle

Gary McNees wrote:

>
> God being sovereign does not mean that man cannot do that which
> God forbids, and which God does not will that he do.
>
Your error is defining "when." Prior to the fall man had the capacity
of the either or. But after he had shot himself in the head, he was
dead. How does a dead man choose?

((( 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. )))

Bob Felts wrote:

> > But JWs clearly equivocate on what "Jesus as Lord" means. Whereas
you and I
> > should agree: it means Lord GOD.
>
> We do agree. But will Jesus condemn someone who holds that "Jesus as
> Lord" means "Jesus as master"?

How can it be otherwise if the basis for believing is the inspiration
of the Spirit? Can the Spirit lie? This brings us to what Reformed
theologians have stated concerning true faith that it involved
"notitia", "assensus," and "fiducia." Notitia speaks to our point.
Faith requires an object. That object cannot be the object of faith
unless it is first known. Pisteuein has from the beginning required
the correct object. To "have no other gods before you" requires
correct understand of what is true and what is not. After His
incarnation, "God with us", after the requirement of the Spirit (Rom
8:9), it becomes obvious that to have a false view of who Christ
actually is is to not have the testimony of the Spirit, therefore
placing one faith in an idolatrous image.

> In both cases, Jesus is still followed.

Someone has to refer to it. "Lord Lord. . . I never knew you."

> I have to give BB credit; while he is so wrong as to defy
description,
> he is in here slugging away, trying to convince us of the truth as he
> sees it. He's trying to fish, as our Master commands, even though
he's
> using rancid bait.
>
He's fishing in an empty bath tub. Sincerity is never a qualification.
Rom 10:2.
>
>
> So Jesus saves based upon correct knowledge, leading to correct
> confession, of the individual. How is this not gnosticism, leading
to
> salvation by works?
>
Because of the calling of the Father and the testimony of the Spirit.
For someone not to believe in the deity of Christ is a proof that they
have not been regenerated. Regeneration is required before man can
spiritually appraise his position before God. It is also required
before he can not only see his need of a savior, but that his Savior
is, indeed, God Himself, "the Just and the Justifier."
> >

> >
> > >> For the evidence for the Trinity is so overwhelming, and so well
known.
> > >> That is why our interlocutor has had to resort to so many
dishonest
> > >> debating techniques, such as the 'fasle dilemma' you yourself
pointed
> > >> out.
> > >
> > >The older I get, the more I see that it is impossible for some
people to
> > >think logically. There is something in their consitution that
puts up a
> > >wall that argument cannot scale. Are they condemned for this
accident of
> > >heredity/environment/whatever, or might it be the case that our
Lord has
> > >put them in a position where they are doing the best they can do?
> >
Your whole argumentation is predicated on the autonomous man having
sufficiency in himself to true spiritual enlightenment. This is
definitely not the Biblical teaching. (Rom 3:10ff). Therefore "so
well known" cannot be forced to mean that it is spiritually appraised
correctly. There may come an intellectual understanding of the
doctrine, but there can never be an inspired appreciation and
acceptance..
>
> > Well, Bob, some of us noticed this 'wall' many years ago. And
although we
> > recognize that yes, _argument_ cannot scale it, we realize that
what
> > _really_ puts that wall up is the sinful tendency to exalt one's
own
> > interest or opinion. It is the spiritual battle against that sinful
> > tendency that scales it (not w/o the help of grace).
>
> A battle you never have to fight? If you have to fight this battle
and
> yet are redeemed, why is it that they, who fight the same battle, are
> not redeemed?
>
Because they are not hypocrites. One cannot be a hypocrite if one is
acting according to the principle of his nature. Even after man has
fallen, he has within him the knowledge that his idea of autonomy is a
false one. Paul speaks of this in Rom 1. The prodigal could not
forget the father's voice and the father's house. He retained a true
understanding of reality. He remembers that the father is good and
that the father is awaiting his return. Yet his adopted principle
drives him on to the pig trough. On the one hand he will do the
"good," at least in the sense which is external. He will live a "good"
moral life. He will be ansxious to promote the welfare of his fellow
man and the community which they together live in. In all this it
would then be correct to state that he is not a hypocrite because he is
not sufficiently self-consious to such. Only those who have had
enlightenment can be hypocrites.

Man "knows" that he is a creature of God. Yet his idea of autonomy
always forces him to think that he is not a dependent creature.
Therefore, sin is always a rebellion against better knowledge. Man's
depravity, apart from the saving grace of God, is such that he cannot
but sin against all "better knowledge," either general or special. His
fallen nature has become "second nature" to him. He is controlled in
his thinking by the idea of his own ultimacy. This is the biblical
teaching of what actually happened not only in the garden, but of
Lucifer's own self determined change in inclination. But it must also
be said that man is not in every sense self-conscious of his adoption
of being only self-oriented. This requires enlightenment.

((( 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. )))