JD wrote: I have made a scriptural argument for the Holy Spirit's ministry of regeneration being a NT doctrine. Why have you people ignored it? Why will people not deal with it?
Rightly dividing the Word does not mean ignore inconsistencies. In fact it means quite the opposite.
As I said before. The subjects were "wives" and "husbands." Nothing about victims and victimizers.
I am glad that you believe in eternal security. Then you must believe that God will not divorce his bride. Otherwise, the whole picture would be nonsensical at the very least.
The argument is not about who is perfect and who is not. I happen to believe that divorce can be forgiven like any other sin. This does not mean that it is not sin as you would like to think. If you want to ease your conscience Hebrews 10 tells us that it is the blood of Christ that gives us that peace, not trying to excuse our sin.
No need to change the subject. Just admit that you were wrong in saying what you said and move. In this way (1) you will make me feel good about myself and (2) at least you can be consistent in you r theology no matter how perverted it is.
If David was the elect, then according to Calvinism, the Holy Spirit would not had been in danger of being taken away from him. In your attempt to disprove arminianism (and rightly so) you assert that an elect (David) can lose the Holy Spirit.
Actually, the only subjects in the verse was wife and husband. Nothing about victims and victimizers.
For you to allow a door of divorce, is to create theological havoc on the picture of marriage in Christian doctrine. To name a couple:
The Church and Jesus(Ephesians 5) The Law Versus Grace (Romans7)
If God allows divorce, then the anology of marriage and grace are completely disintegrated. One can lose his salvation and one is not completely free from the ordinace of the law.
Razer wrote: Here is one where the word depart equals divorce! Do you deny this?
Yes, I do. If depart meant divorce, then the Holy Spirit made a boo-boo in insisting on calling the divorce man her husband.
R. K. Borill wrote: You wrongly assume that regeneration never occurred before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I suppose David wrongly cried in Psalm 51:11 after his adulterous sin and murder, "Cast me not from thy presence and take not thy Holy Spirit from me." . . .How stupid David.
Ok R.K. you have just crucified your theology.
Contrary to what you believe, you have just confessed that one of the elect can lose the Holy Spirit.
For a Calvinist, that's quite an arminian twist.
See what happens when you funnel the Scriptures through your theology rather than your theology through the Scriptures?
Sounds like I was right: redefinitions of simple terms.
Depart does not equal divorce. I am sure Paul was quite familiar with the word and he would have used it if he wanted to.
Separation and divorce are two different things.
Now allow me to give you a simple declarative statement without redefining any words from the same chapter you quoted:
I Corinthians 7:39 wrote: "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
Sounds to me like "'til death do us part," not what you purport, "'til a breach of contract do us part."
A Presbyterian wrote: Baptism is a *Sacrament* ordained by Christ Himself. HE never intended that it should be the contention, of part of the church to use it to divide it up into factions, as the Anabaptist/Baptist organisations have adapted it into today.
You might want to say that to your Reformed idols who insited on killing the baptists over the meaning of it.
Sacrament? Sounds like something from the Catholic church that you have yet to reform.
Razer Ramon wrote: The Old Testament instructions are but a pattern for the New Tetament believer in this matter of divorce. The New Testament believer is instructed in 1 Cor 7...
Do we have a simple declarative statement that states this or are we doing the redefinition of words that only exists in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist again.
Teaching wrote: "As a matter of fact, from evidence from the Catacombs before 200, it would seem probable that effusion, pouring, could have been the most common mode of baptism in the early church.
Sounds like something you read out of the Catholic encyclopedia.
11/11/07 11:18 PM
11/11/07 6:44 PM
