Dac
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
French
Short for d'accord
Interjection
Bart Goddard wrote:
> matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>
>>>What's the difference between "influencing for our good"
>>>and "coercion for our good"?
>>
>>If you don't know the answer to this, Bart, then you were in no
>>position
>
>
> The important thing here is that Gary starts to see that
> most of his arguments are just rewording something
> unpalletable in order to make them more palletable.
What is unpalatable to you, is what Scripture states.
It is unpalatable to you, because you take Luther over
what God says, but you are certainly not alone, as all
Calvinists do the same thing.
> There's this "Good God" in heaven, and yet all these
> babies are born with devastating diseases, or into
> abusive families, or into poverty. He's all powerful
> and all knowing, and yet these things happen. So
> what's the knee-jerk reaction? To say "God doesn't
> cause or will these things, but rather He merely
> _allows_ them to happen."
Why is this "knee-jerk." What is not "knee-jerk" but
down right blasphemy is for you to assert that the raping of little
children what God causes.
Remember the man born blind? John 9:2 And his disciples asked him,
saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born
blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents:
but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I see a vast difference between what God causes and what man causes. God
caused this man born blind for good reasons. But God does not cause
anyone to rape little children.
Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn
their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded
not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
I realize that this is anthropomorphic language, but even such language
is spoken for a reason. And the reason I see is that attributing to God
the things that people such as does the Calvinist is just plain untrue.
I am sure that God is not pleased that people attribute to Him such
things as raping little children which is in the same class of sin as
burning one's child for an offering.
> By using words of a different connotation, they make
> themselves feel better, but they haven't changed the
> facts or denotations. By changing "coercion" to "influence",
> Gary hasn't changed the meaning of his doctrine. It's
> just that "influence" sounds better to him.
I agree with Matthew. I am amazed that Bart does not know the
difference between influence and coercion. But I am not going
to explain the difference to him.
>>But then why am I not surprised? Oh, I remember now, because you were
>>the one who made the incredibly rash assertion that God sought out
>>Adam in Paradise after his sin in order to kill him!
>
>
> Let's see, on one hand you seem to think there is a huge
> difference between "thinking" and "knowing", as if man could
> know something any more perfectly than he could think something.
>
> of nothing.
I must be really slow. How does this in any way correspond to
what Matthew said above?
> On the other hand, God _did_ kill Adam. So, in this case,
> Adam was right anyway.
No Adam did not think or know this. Further, God did not kill
him, He made clothes for him, out of animals skins, prefiguring the
Sacrifice which would one day be made on all our behalf.
The physical death of Adam began when he sinned, "dying thou shalt die."
And what is this, that God had to "go after" Adam to "kill him?"
Gary
((( 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. )))
