Object
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
| Table of contents |
Etymology
From Latin objectum, object, literally thrown against, from perfect passive participle objectus, from verb objicere, throw against, from prefix ob-, against, plus verb jacere, throw.
English
Pronunciation
- ŏb'jĕkt, /ˈɒbdʒekt/, /"QbdZekt/
Noun
object (objects)
- a thing (usually one that can picked up)
- (grammar) The part of a sentence to which the action of the verb applies.
- (computing) In object-oriented programming, an instantiation of a class or structure.
- A person or thing toward which an emotion is directed
- Mary Jane had been the object of Peter's affection for years.
- The convertible, once object of his desire, was now the object of his hatred.
Derived terms
Related terms
Translations
- Dutch: object (1,3), onderwerp (2,4)
- Finnish: esine (1), objekti (1,2,3), kohde (4)
- French: objet m
- German: Objekt n
- Ido: objekto
- Italian: oggetto
- Japanese: 物 (もの), 物体; 対象; 目的, 目的語
- Romanica: objecto m
- Slovak: predmet m
See also
Pronunciation
- əb-jĕkt', /əbˈdʒekt/, /@b"dZekt/
Verb
object (objects, objected, objecting)
Derived terms
Translations
- Finnish: vastustaa
- French: s'opposer, objecter
- German: dagegen sein, Einwände haben
- Ido: objecionar
- Slovak: namietať
et:Object fr:object ru:Object sv:object
lsenders@hotmail.com wrote:
> Gary McNees wrote:
>
>>lsenders@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Gary McNees wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Calvinists see no error, no harm, no problem, in
>>>>teaching that God actually hates (savingly) most of His creatures.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is the exact same line of argumentation of those who wish to
>
> see
>
>>>an end to capital punishment. You both share in the very same
>>>presuppositional base.
>>
>>No we don't. I am in favor of capital punishment, when the rules of
>>justice are followed in the OT. And this has nothing whatsoever to do
>
>
>>with my above statement. It is one thing to punish the guilty when
>
> they
>
>>are guilty because they chose to sin. It is quite another to punish
>>those who have no choice in the matter, (remember, you deny free
>
> will).
>
> No, I do not deny free will.
Calvin and Luther did. Most Calvinists do.
> I deny choice.
By the will one chooses, after he deliberates. So if the will must
choose a single thing, it is not free. So, you deny free will.
> I deny choice even for
> the regenerated man who operates under the flesh.
But it is the CHOICE of the regenerate man to either operate under the
flesh or not to.
> Choice is never
> between Godly good and evil except in the case of the regenerate man.
I agree, except that God purposely makes the unregenerate man able to
Believe in Christ.
> Only he has this. All men have free will. It is part of having the
> image of God within us.
What does free will mean when there are no choices?
>>According to Calvinism, God has caused all to be born Totally
>
> Depraved,
>
>>where this means that all men are unable to come to Christ and
>
> receive
>
>>the free gift of salvation which God offers by simple faith in Christ
>
>
>>and his work.
>
>
> "No man seeks after God."
You repeat this like a magic mantra. This has been discussed
ad nauseam. And even you do not believe it! Does the regenerate
man seek after God?
>>They have no free will to respond to God's command to
>>repent and believe.
Yes they are enabled by Christ's drawing to come to Him.
God said so.
> They have free will. That was never lost. However, their choices are
> always ego centric and never, ever, able to resurrect themselves to
> incline themselves to godliness. Please understand the distinctions.
Again I agree that man cannot "resurrect himself," nor can he "incline
himself to godliness." BUT he CAN believe in Christ, because God draws
him to Christ.
>>This God "ordains" that the vast majority of His
>>human creatures be born in sin such that they CANNOT believe
>
>
> "Ordained." Now this word needs to be defined. Evil was ever in the
> foreknowledge of God.
All things are in the present knowledge of God.
> He didn't learn of its existence after creation.
I know of no one who has ever suggested that he did in this discussion.
There are some nowadays that do suggest this but they are "open theists."
> That there is sin in His creation evidences the fact that He not only
> allowed, permitted its exercise, but prior to creation made provision
> for its penalty. Rev 13:8.
I agree. But I would go much much further than you have. God planned
everything that will ever happen, and I mean absolutely everything. But
by His planning, I do not mean that He was the instrumental cause of any
evil. God gave man free will, and man has used this good gift to sin.
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man
upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
> It is more precise to say that within the
> plan of God, there was permission granted for man to rebel.
I agree. The immediate or proximate cause of anyone's sin is the self
that chooses to sin. Therefore, the man is blamable. BUT God does not
cause the man to so sin, except in the sense that God gave the man the
free will, and God allows or permits the man to sin. He could keep
anyone from sinning at any time.
> The out
> come of this is that man died as he was warned he would.
Again, you need to deal with the facts as they are presented in
Scripture as to the actual doings of unregenerate man. These facts do
not comport with your idea of death. Scripture says man is "dead in
sin." But from the very beginning, these men who are dead in sin hear
God's word, and respond to it, either positively or negatively.
Have you answered the post about Cornelius? Will you assert the
Cornelius was regenerated well before he even knew of Christ?
> I think one
> of primary errors of non-Calvinistic theology is its failure to not
> only correct distinquish but even to admit to the fact that there is a
> distinction between spiritual death and physical death in that
> spiritual death speaks of the transmitted sin nature while physical
> death speaks of imputed sin.
I believe you are mistaken. And in fact it is the Calvinist who
constantly brings up Lazarus as an example of death. The non-Calvinist
is well aware of man's condition as unregenerate. The Calvinist, rather,
goes beyond Scripture in his assertions concerning this "dead in sin."
And they also go far beyond Augustine as has been demonstrated by George
Smith in recent posts. According to Augustine, man is prone to sin.
Also, as Matthew pointed out, and you and other Calvinists avoided, God
DOES not count the sin of the father against the children. Even the
verse in Romans is perverted.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
This is probably one of the verses most maligned by Calvinists.
They read into it what is just not there.
The first clause means that sin entered the world when Adam sinned.
The second clause states that the result of sin is death, Adam's death.
The third and forth clauses combine to mean that death passed upon all
men, BECAUSE all men sin.
We cannot read this as meaning that God inflicts the consequences of
Adam's sin on his children, for God specifically states that He does not
do this. Every man will die for his own sins.
> This precipitates out into faulty
> distinctions betwee the divine method of dealing with the Christian's
> sin and that of dealing with the sin of the unregenerate.
Here I don't think WE disagree.
> Spiritual
> death is analogous to the root or the tree itself whereas physical
> death is analogous to the fruit. Scripture concludes that it is the
> internal spiritual death which is of primary import. The external
> exhibition will change when the internal nature is changed. So long as
> sickness or either the root or tree are neglected, the undesireable
> fruit will and must appear and in the case of the sin nature within
> unregenerate man, is most certainly does appear.
I'm glad you also used the figure of "sickness." For Christ is said to
be the GREAT PHYSICIAN. And when a person is sick, that person may ask
to be healed. But the figure of death is stretched beyond all Scriptural
definition.
>>and be
>>saved. Further, this God did not provide any atonement for them, even
>
>
>>were it possible for them to believe.
>
>
> Oh no. You have a truly false understanding of the Reformed view. It
> is limited atonement in its effectual, actual application, not its
> offer.
This is not true. Amyraldians, not Calvinists assert that Christ's
atonement was for all men but applied only to the elect. But I agree
that are "reformed" theologians who are on both sides as it were.
I believe that Christ died for all men without exception, but that the
benefits of that death are effectual only to those who believe. But an
"offer" which cannot be accepted is not a true offer. For example, and I
mean this as a real offer. I will give you $1000 if you will jump to the
moon and back. Do you see this as a real offer?
>>A double whammy. Next, this God
>>promises to punish them eternally for not doing what only God could
>
> have
>
>>made possible for them to do!
>
>
> How does God operate? Does He not operate off of infinite
> righteousness? As Paul cried out:
No He does not! His righteousness, justice, and all other attributes are
equally coextensive. That is, He is lovingly just, etc.
> Rom. 3:3-6 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not
> nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
I agree with Paul completely. But what Paul and I teach with regard to
man being able to believe and what you teach are poles apart. These
freely chose to not believe.
> May it never be! Rather,
> let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is
> written, " That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest
> prevail when Thou art judged."
You try in vain to support your heretical doctrine, but do not succeed.
God is infinitely just, and even the most perverted person (not a
Calvinist) believes that a god who requires what he withholds is
definitely not just. That is, all but Calvinists believe that god
saying, " you must believe but I have made you so that you cannot
believe," is most unjust.
> But if our unrighteousness
> demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who
> inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human
> terms.) May it never be! For otherwise how will God judge the world?
Certainly not! The true God is not unjust at all. But the God you
Calvinists portray as god is infinitely unjust. A god who requites what
he withholds, which is obvious from TULIP, and then punishes by endless
torture those he has done this to, is not only unjust but infinitely so.
> I think one of the typical blindnesses of this generation (if not every
> generation) if cause and effect as brought down into the personal
> world. Today people get incensed when they are fired for stealing.
> "They owed me that for paying me so little." No one forced them to
> steal. But left to themselves, they do so freely based on false
> presumptions.
Can anyone tell me why the Calvinist keeps trying to DIVERT the issue?
You keep giving false analogies. For your above analogy to be correct,
it requires that the employer who hired the person make the person such
that he must steal! This is the case with TULIP. It is your God who made
man Totally Depraved (in that this was your God's just decision that all
men be so born.) Next, this TD person can only sin! He cannot do that
which his employer requires. A few employees are given a special "Thing"
so that they will not steal. But this "thing" is withheld from all
others. (Note all this follows only under the false Calvinistic system.)
> And so it is with your analysis of what is actually taught by the
> Calvinist.
As I see it, you have basically agreed with my description of Calvinism.
Please be specific where I have not based my thoughts on TULIP, or I
have misstated what TULIP means.
All that I have said follows directly from the T of TULIP.
>>This is not LOVE by anyone's standards,
>>neither the True God's, nor any man's who is not a Calvinist!
>>
>
> I have just purchased a copy of Julius Muller's "The Christian
> Doctrine of Sin". NOT CHEAP! In fact, I can find only one other copy
> available for sale on all the search engines. But the excerpts I have
> already read absolutely destroy your faulty analysis of the Calvinist
> position, not from a stated Calvinist apology, but by means of an
> analysis of sin's true nature.
Please share a short excerpt, so we can see this for ourselves.
>>>The truth of the matter is, capital punishment establishes a
>
> higher,
>
>>>not a lower, view of man. Man is so dignified, so worthy, that to
>>>murder a man is equally worthy of the murder to forfeit his own
>
> life.
>
>>>It is the great high value of man that necessitates captial
>
> punishment.
>
>>How true. But do we use capital punishment on those who we FORCE to
>>commit a crime?
>
>
> When was a man ever forced by God to sin?
When God decreed that man be born is sin, totally depraved (as defined
by Calvinists), and unable to not sin.
>>Do we punish by death those who we put a loaded gun into
>>their hands, take their hands and kill.
>
>
> The punishment came when man put the loaded gun into his mouth and
> pulled the trigger! Cause and effect. He died. Only God can raise
> him from his death bed. A dead man cannot even desire a refersal of
> his actions. This is indirectly evidenced in the account of Dives and
> Lazarus. Dives never seeks to repent in hope of being resurrected,
> rather he accepts the fact but seeks out the resurrection of his yet
> "living" brothers. No?
He was physically dead. But many unregenerate men are physically alive.
>>Not in any sane society. Only in
>>the nightmarish land of Calvinism are such things deemed "good," and
>>"just." The man is born a sinner, unable to repent or believe, a man
>
> who
>
>>can do nothing but sin, and this God of Calvinism "passes by,"
>
> withholds
>
>>the ONLY means of recovery, for the vast majority of those he is
>>supposed to "love." This is utter nonsense! But it is true Calvinism.
>>
>
> What is nonsensical is you understanding of what Calvinism actually
> teaches. Yet it is true, that man is incapable of choosing good. That
> is a direct result of having died. Having died he is a slave to sin
> and sin is death. He is a slave. A slave cannot free himself if he is
> dead. Death infers that choice is dead. Choice always and only serves
> its master -self.
Lots of words to try to misdirect the reader. You agree that man is born
dead and unable to even accept the only remedy provided by God.
>>>Contrary the biblical position, man cannot be reformed.
>>
>>Well, I think your sentence needs work, but the non-Calvinist or
>>Biblicist, agrees that man cannot "reform himself." God does the
>>renewing, upon faith in His precious Son. John 12:36 "While you have
>
>
>>the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."
>>
>
> "There is none who understands."
Very neat! Just do not respond to what Christ said!
> Only after having been regenerated,
> that is, given the capacity to be enlightened, and the being
> enlightened, is man then able to understand and then to accept the
> truth. A dead man must first be resurrected before he can choose.
But unfortunately, this is the opposite of what you just quoted me above
to show what Christ said.
CHRIST SAID: "BELIEVE THAT YE MAY BECOME SONS."
You directly contradict Christ, and say the opposite!
>>>In fact, he is
>>>already dead. "Y lived X number of years and he died." He died
>>>spiritually as well and his future, like that of the murderer (in a
>>>righteous society) is determined.
>>
>>So you see nothing wrong with me putting a gun in your hand, point it
>
> at
>
>>someone, pulling the trigger, and then you being punished for the
>
> crime?
>
>>This is the Calvinistic system of justice.
>>
>
> You saw nothing wrong with the signers of the Declaration of
> Independence representing you, did you?
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>>Next, Christ said the dead hear His voice.
>>
>
> So? It also states, "though He had performed many signs before them,
> yet they were not believing in Him."
Yup. Just like you have not believed many passages in which Christ is
quoted where He directly denies your theology. "Though many Scriptures
state that Calvinism is false, you do still do not believe."
>>>When man fell, he inherited the
>>>second death. "All men died." God was not obligated to save any.
>>>Again, as I have noted to Matthew elsewhere tonight, the problem is
>>>that you advance your argument primarily from the human vantage
>
> without
>
>>>recognizing what it does in direct ratio to the redemptive off of
>
> God.
>
>>No, neither of us do that. WE go by what God has actually said. You
>>manufacture your own scripture, twist real Scripture to try to make
>
> it
>
>>say the opposite of what it actually says. And this with not a few
>>Scriptures! You must do this to hundreds of passages.
>>
>>
>>>Eph. 2:8, 9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and
>
> that
>
>>>not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works,
>>>that_no_one_should_boast.
>>
>>How true! And it would be wonderful if you believed it! See that,
>>"SAVED THROUGH FAITH!" This means that logically faith PRECEDES
>>salvation. And your Calvinistic system requires you to invert the
>
> order.
>
> Sigh. Again. Causality. How many different causes do you, yourself,
> see in everyday life? As I noted and as Calvin himself notes,
> Aristotle was correct, as Augustine also concluded, in distinquishing
> at least 5 different causations. The historical understanding of
> salvific causality is that faith is the "instrumental" cause.
Independent of which of the five causes it is, God says it is THROUGH
faith that we get salvation, life, become children, are begotten, etc.
Therefore FAITH logically PRECEDES these things. Regeneration, wherein
man is first given life from God follows FAITH in Christ. This
contradicts Calvinism at its core. It is the very essence that
regeneration must precede faith for Calvinism to stand. And a multitude
of Scriptures state that faith precedes regeneration.
>>>1 Cor. 1:21, 26-29 For since in the wisdom of God the world
>
> through
>
>>>its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through
>
> the
>
>>>foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.. . .
>>
>>AMEN!!!!! How are we saved? Not by regeneration first, but by
>
> believing
>
>>the message preached. We first believe, and then God regenerates us.
>>
>
> "There is none who understands, none who seeks, all have become
> useless, none good, no not even one."
Your mantra again.
> So to receive the wisdom of God, man "must first be born again to see
> the kingdom of God."
Seeing the kingdom, and receiving Christ by faith are two different things.
> Just so that I might gain some insight / understanding, which
> theological school of thought are you an adherent of?
I agree mostly with Geisler, not in everything, but especially with his
understanding of soteriology, free will, and TULIP. Also, almost all non
Calvinistic Baptists teach the same soteriology. But as you could read,
Augustine does not teach about free will what Calvin and you teach. So
it is a misnomer to say that a Calvinist is an Augustinian. But I could
care less. No man is inspired today. And the only rule of faith is
Scripture. And no matter what the Calvinist says, there are many of us
who know Calvinism and Scripture well enough to point out the many
glaring contradictions between the two.
As I have done in the many posts to you, and you have not addressed a
single verse showing the falsity of Calvinism.
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. )))
