Re: For Arminians and Calvinists.....

In article <AFF0DB42-2799-5FAF-C3C9-7BA0A38CC269@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bart
Goddard says...

>Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>news:C75B3552-1265-BF4C-4518-F85A00C1DAF6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

>> So much for one example of "time of their trouble", drowning. But
>> there are other examples, too. And in at least some of these
>> examples, you cannot save them by force, as you describe here.

>But you would try.

Unfortunately, I know too many parents who did not. And they didn't
even have the excuse of knowing ahead of time that their efforts were
doomed to failure.

>You wouldn't leave them hanging because you have some lingering doubt
>about what's going on in their hearts.  You wouldn't say "Well, I'd
>like to help you, I truly would, but I'm not sure your motives are
>pure, so I'm just going to sit here and watch you die instead."

But this is the wrong analogy. There is no doubt in the case of God
parenting and shepherding us. Nor is "leaving them hanging" a fair
description of what He does or doesn't do for the reprobate.

On the contrary: Scripture is clear that He works hard for the
salvation of _all_ mankind, even the reprobate. Scripture makes this
clear when it says things like:

But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a
disobedient and contrary people."  (Rom 10:21 RSVA)

and:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son
of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal
life." For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  (Joh
3:14-16 RSVA) [capitalization mine]

What _did_ you think He was doing, "holding out His hands"? He was
calling them to repentance, warning them of punishments to come.

>>>> then I will just ask if you will show that same kind of mercy of
>>>> rescuing them if they were capable of making mature decisions?

>>>This is the point where, if we were sitting across the table,
>>>I would stand up and break your nose.  Some statements are 
>>>just too cheeky to brook.  

>> Yes, there are such statements. But what is mysterious is why you
>> think this was one of them.

>It wouldn't be mysterious to anyone who has children.

Do you think I didn't know you would say that? Of course I did. But
you have said it only because -- predictably -- you have missed my
point -- and semi's. My point was that you base your anger on your
_misinterpretation_ of what he said, not what he actually said. You do
this often.

>Of _course_ I would (and have) shown my adult children the same mercy
>I showed them as infants.

But you are answering a different question. He did not ask, "would you
show them the same mercy?", he asked, "would you show them the same
mercy _if they were capable of mature decisions_". But your entire
reply concerns a case where your son was clearly _not_ capable of
mature decisions, since his will was so completely undermined by
addiction.

[snip]

>This cheeky SOB called my parental devotion into question?

No, he did not. This is where you misread him. What he _really_ said was:

> I think there is a misunderstanding here. You give a good analogy to
> bring about the point I am trying to convey. If your kids were in
> serious trouble, you would save them, fine. But they can choose to
> accept your help or not, in the time of their trouble.  then I will
> just ask if you will show that same kind of mercy of rescuing them
> if they were capable of making mature decisions?
[fm Message-ID: <2F0636B0-EBB5-E59F-6604-138FA7D8AE73@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>]

Clearly he has different examples in mind from the example you gave:
rather than the extreme example of drug addiction, he seems to have
had in mind the decision many parents make -- and at least some times
rightly -- to allow their children to hurt themselves a little now due
to their bad decisions, so that their children learn that there are
consequences to bad decisions.

I can speak from experience when I say that at least _some_ children
really do learn this way. Also, that at least _some_ parents really
are showing good and genuine parental devotion when they do this.

Therefore a logic teacher, especially one who repetitively and
habitually brags of his experience as a logic teacher, should be
ashamed of thinking that there is anything in these words that
justifies the claim that he "called your parental devotion into
question". But a logic teacher who also calls himself a 'christian'
should be even more ashamed of using that false reasoning to excuse
the inexcusable and irrational anger you showed immediately below:

>If we were face-to-face, he'd be choking on his own blood by now.

In other words, you are a violent man, so enslaved to your passions of
anger and violence you cannot possibly be living the life of
repentance you spoke of earlier in this thread.

After all, if you were leading this life of repentance, instead of
posting those words that put yourself to shame, you would have held
back from posting such fowl words, since you would have remembered:

Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways; (Pro
3:31 RSVA)

You have chosen some of his ways, even if you did not go all the way
and become a highway robber.

You would also remember:

The violence of the wicked will sweep them away, because they refuse
to do what is just.  (Pro 21:7 RSVA)

You _do_ refuse to do what is just. You refuse to do it in the
overwhelming majority of your posts, every time you refuse to bridle
your irrational anger. What is worse, you not only lead yourself
deeper into sin with your posts, but you lead others into it also,
just as the Prover predicts the angry man will do:

A man of wrath stirs up strife, and a man given to anger causes much
transgression.  (Pro 29:22 RSVA)

You _are_ such a "man of wrath". Some "life of repentance" _you_ lead!

>And in case anyone cares: He's been clean for over two years now,
>occasionally works and is looking for a decent full-time job.  So we
>probably got the job done.

Probably. But drug addiction is so subversive of the victim's will,
you must not count on it. A relapse is still a terribly dangerous
threat, and will be for the rest of his life. That is what makes
addiction to such illicit drugs such a terrible thing.


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, 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. 
 )))