Ante
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
| Table of contents |
English
Etymology
A Latin preposition and prefix; akin to Gr. anti, Skr. anti, Goth. and-, anda- (only in comp.), AS. and-, ond-, (only in comp.: cf. Answer, Along, G. ant-, ent- (in comp.).
Pronunciation
IPA: WEAE /ˈænt.i/
Homonyms
Prefix
- The Latin ante is generally used in the sense of before, in regard to position, order, or time, and the Gr. anti in that of opposite, or in the place of.
Noun
- In Poker and other games, the contribution made by all players to the pot before dealing the cards.
Verb
- To pay the ante in Poker. Often used ante up.
- To make an investment in money, effort, or time before knowing one's chances.
Ido
Preposition
- before.
Spanish
Preposition
Noun
gl:Ante la:Ante nl:ante pl:Ante
> If God
>reaches down and raises a man to heaven, the man can be said to have
>ascended to heaven. If on the other hand he climbs Jacob's ladder to
>heaven, he also can be said to have ascended to
I agree. So John 3:13 says "no man has ascended..." and that includes
Enoch. Bob tries to explain it away by saying it refers to "climbing"
rather than being "taken" but that is merely eisegesis.
((( 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. )))
In article <176.05.16.05.124834000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>Matthew Johnson
>
>> In article <174.03.14.05.789037000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> This is a strange definition of free will. Because you cannot will to
>> >> fly (or rather since we need to keep a careful difference between
>> >> willing to do, and actually doing), you don't have free will?
>> >
>> >Notice what you did.
>>
>> The failure to notice is yours, not his.
>
>Failure to notice what Matthew?
Failure to notice what Gary really did. And by asking this question, this time
you even failed to notice what I did.
I wish I could say I was surprised by your haste in repeating the same failure.
> This is one of your typical pointless
>hit and run comments
It is neither 'pointless' nor 'hit-and-run'. If you would get out of the habit
of snipping overmuch, perhaps you would notice this. It is YOU who is mangling
the context so badly that you cannot tell what I am referring to anymore. So
stop trying to put the blame on me.
>since you never provide any information as to what
>it is you think you're commenting on.
Not true. Again: t is YOU who is mangling the context so badly that you cannot
tell what I am referring to anymore. So stop trying to put the blame on me.
>I read a response you made to
>another poster in another thread and all it consisted of was "I object,
>that's wrong, no." No reasons, no explanations, nothing but a waste of
>time.
But NONE of this is true. What is more, you missed something far more important:
for every "I object, that's wrong, no" response I give, the poster (to whom I am
responding) has made an assertion or assumption that is _just_ as 'unexplained'.
What is more, that 'assertion or assumption' is usually not only wrong, but so
_conspicuously_ wrong, that I have to doubt either the honesty or the mental
capacity of the person making it.
And before anyone rushes to accuse me of "judging others" for doing this, allow
me to point out that I am not the only one in this NG who has exposed some
sinister attempts to teach monstrous cultism by exactly such dishonesty.
So why are you criticizing me for unexplained negation, and not criticizing the
other poster (e.g., yourself) for making unexplained and unsupportable
assertions? Do you really think that such a "double-standard" will go
uncriticized?
>I wonder if this is because you have only one tool in your toolkit.
If you can still wonder this, then you cannot READ. I have a lot of other tools.
I used them to show how false your teaching is when I refuted it based on Eze
18:23.
>Your peferred mode of analysis is "it isn't this, it isn't that" to the
>extent that it's difficult for you to say what something is.
This isn't true. Why, I very rarely even get the _chance_ to display my
_preferred_ mode of analysis in this NG, because posters like you keep dragging
the discussion off course with so MANY of these unexplained
assertions/assumptions that I think you are deliberately doing to to _prevent_
honest discussion.
> That sure
>fits the example here.
I'll bet you can predict my response here;) No, it does not fit it.
>
>>
>> > You confused "inability to carry out" (i.e. I cannot fly) with
>> >"inability to will".
>>
>> No. You cannot choose what is beyond your power.
>
>Of course you can.
No.
>Your mind can make a choice whether or not you can
>carry it out.
No, again. That would not be a 'choice', but only a WISH. I have already
explained this to you. But instead of understanding the explanation, instead of
showing even a HINT that you even _read_ the explanation, you go back to
repeating the same nonsense.
>In fact, I would wager that there have been times when
>you've chosen to move a limb, but your body hasn't cooperated.
But you "would wager" this only because you are still ignoring what I have
already explained to you: the difference between 'choice' and 'wish'.
> When
>things didn't work, you didn't "wish harder" to make it so.
How much further will you try to run with your misunderstanding? That would be
WILL harder, not WISH harder. For the 100000th time, 'wish' is NOT the same as
'will'.
>Rather, you
>tried to overcome the mind/body malfunction (unless you realized it was
>a permanent paralysis) by an act of the will.
>> You can only wish it. But this is a different sense of the word 'will'.
>
>People wish because they know they cannot have.
Finally, you broke the pattern of repeating the same sophomoric failure to
understand the meaning of words! But alas, you only broke it to come up with a
NEW failure! For you NOW make it clear that not only do you not understand the
meaning of 'choice', you don't EVEN understand the meaning of 'wish'.
A 'wish' is NOT exclusively for something we know we cannot have. That is the
point of ch. 22 of De Fide Bk II, where he says:
For will is just the simple faculty of willing,
whereas wish is will directed to some definite object.
And before you complain about this public berating for you failure to understand
simple words, allow me to point out to you AGAIN, that I gave you this excellent
reference explaining the difference between ALL these words in painstaking
detail: in fact, I gave it to you several times.
That, Bob, is the reason you are getting the harsh treatment here. For after
pretending to know so much about the human will and its weaknesses, not only do
you show a shocking ignorance of it, but you will not even turn to the very
accessible depository of the remedy for your ignorance: St. John of Damascus's
De Fide Orthodoxa, especially Book II ch. 22-25, 29. Instead of turning to the
remedy, you call the healed 'sick' and wage this misguided crusade against the
truth, accusing "free-willers" of perverting the Gospel, when it is YOU who
perverts it.
> Having and choosing are two different things.
Duh. That was never in dispute. Not between us, not between you and Gary.
>> >I can will to fly, but I cannot fly.
>>
>> That is why it is more accurate to say "I can WISH to fly",
>> NOT "I can will to fly".
>>
>
>I was correct in what I said. I can will to fly.
But you cannot CHOOSE it unless you have a pilot's license.
>I can also wish to
>fly. One has to do with choosing, the other has to do with ability.
But you cannot choose what you have no ability to do. That is the whole point of
chapter 26 of De Fide, where he says:
Now deliberation is concerned with equal possibilities:
and an `equal possibility' is an action that is itself
within our power and its opposite, and our mind makes
CHOICE of the alternatives.
So you see, the 'choice' must be between alternatives that are within our power.
>> >God cannot will to change His nature.
>>
>> Not 'cannot', but DOES not.
>
>And why does He not do this?
You do not need to know the answer to this question.
[snip]
>> >And how do you know this? Chapter and verse, please. In some book other
>> >than the imagination of Gary, chapter 7, verse 16.
>>
>> Your habit of resorting to such snide comments instead of logical rebuttal
>> is what has convinced me that you are NOT interested in the truth; you are
>> only interested in upholding 'Reform' falsehood at any cost.
>
>And your scorecard of judging my intentions has me wondering if your
>ability to read Scripture is better than your ability to read people --
>because you're batting zero.
So you say. But if you want others in the NG to believe it, stop the snide
comments where rebuttals are called for.
>My response was a logical rebuttal,
No, it was not.
> at least in a Bible study group,
>because it demands a Sciptural basis for a statement.
Remember how harshly so many of us criticized Sarah for her mindless refrain,
"chapter and verse, please"? Remember how so MANY of us recognized the
fallacious basis for her question, when she asked this demanding a "proof-text"
for the Trinity?
You should remember. If you really don't remember, then your memory is so bad,
you should give up posting in the NG.
And once you remember, you should realize that just as Sarah was avoiding real
rebuttal with that question, so I claim you are doing here. For it is
unrealistic to expect a proof-text, yet that is all you will accept, since you
said "chapter & verse".
> Gary made the
>statement that "Before God created, He was free to not create". How
>does Gary know this?
Perhaps because he has a better education in philosophy and religion than you
do: for this has been the standard belief among thinking Christians for
centuries. Only with the rise of 'Reform' perversion has it been forgotten among
certain groups.
Since it has been the _standard_ belief for so long, it is "shifting the burden"
to ask _Gary_ to supply it. Do your own homework yourself, stop asking Gary to
do it.
>I've never seen anything in Scripture that I think
>remotely addresses this.
Well, that would not be so bad. What IS so bad is that even if Gary _did_ show
you where this is addressed in Scripture, you would fail to recognize it.
Instead, you would go back to the same bad behavior you have been showing for so
long in this thread, showering Gary with accusations of teaching another Gospel.
>So Gary needs to provide proof for his
>statement which is anchored in Scripture -- not in his imagination.
But you would not accept it -- unless it were anchored in YOUR imagination. But
of course, it will not be.
>Otherwise, the best answer that we can give is that we don't know.
Not true. Scripture never says that all we can know about God is available in
proof-texts.
[snip]
>> No, no Calvinist sticks to Scripture, doggedly or not. You all interpolate
>> into Scripture by conjuring up your own theologically biased definitions
>> of key terms in Scripture, inventing excuses to systematically misread
>> passages all over Scripture. Your mishandling of Ez 18:23 is a perfect
>> example of this.
>
>Asked and answered.
The only 'answer' I saw was so weak, it is also already refuted. You are STILL
ignoring the meaning of the verb ChPTs (H2654). It is a verb of WILLING.
Therefore Eze 18:23 implies that God does NOT will the death of the sinner.
>However, since you seem to think the issue is still
>open, start a new thread, perhaps titled something like "Calvinists and
>Ezekiel 18:23", present your opening argument, and we'll take it from
>there.
It may be more annoying to you, but since you did not admit your defeat in that
other thread, I find it more suitable for _my_ purposes to discuss it here,
reminding you of your failure to respond WHENEVER you deny the Gospel teaching
concerning Free Choice of the Will.
--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
((( 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. )))
